1
A Survey on Detection, Classification, and Tracking
of Aerial Threats using Radar and Communications
Systems
Wahab Khawaja∗ , Martins Ezuma∗ , Member, IEEE, Vasilii Semkin‡ , Fatih Erden∗ , Ozgur Ozdemir∗ , Member,
IEEE, and Ismail Guvenc∗ , Fellow, IEEE
‡ VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Tietotie 3, 02150 Espoo, Finland
§ Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
Email: wahab.ali@must.edu.pk, ezuma3000@gmail.com, vasilii.semkin@vtt.fi, erdenfatih@gmail.com, {oozdemi,
iguvenc}@ncsu.edu
arXiv:2402.05909v1 [eess.SP] 8 Feb 2024
Abstract—The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for
a variety of commercial, civilian, and defense applications has
increased many folds in recent years. While UAVs are expected
to transform future air operations, there are instances where they
can be used for malicious purposes. In this context, the detection,
classification, and tracking (DCT) of UAVs (DCT-U) for safety
and surveillance of national air space is a challenging task when
compared to DCT of manned aerial vehicles. In this survey,
we discuss the threats and challenges from malicious UAVs
and we subsequently study three radio frequency (RF)-based
systems for DCT-U. These RF-based systems include radars,
communication systems, and RF analyzers. Radar systems are
further divided into conventional and modern radar systems,
while communication systems can be used for joint communi-
cations and sensing (JC&S) in active mode and act as a source
of illumination to passive radars for DCT-U. The limitations of
the three RF-based systems are also provided. The survey briefly
discusses non-RF systems for DCT-U and their limitations. Future
directions based on the lessons learned are provided at the end
of the survey.
Index Terms—Classification, communication systems, detec-
tion, joint communications and sensing (JC&S), radar, radio
frequency (RF) analyzers, tracking, unmanned aerial vehi-
cles (UAVs).
I. I NTRODUCTION
Radar systems are widely used for the detection, classi-
fication, and tracking (DCT) of aerial vehicles. Radar tech-
nology was first introduced in 1935 [1]. The initial radar
systems were bulky with large mechanically rotated antennas,
were ground-based, and they had large power requirements,
limited processing capabilities, limited accuracy, high cost.
They were also highly vulnerable to electronic countermea-
sures (ECM). Radars have seen decades of improvements in
overcoming many challenges. Modern radar systems employ
cutting-edge electronics, such as Gallium Nitride, along with
compact antennas, phased arrays, and highly efficient signal
processing techniques. These advancements are pivotal in
achieving remarkable capabilities including extended detection
ranges, rapid response times, streamlined signal processing,
exceptional accuracy, low probability of false alarm (PFA),
unambiguous detection and tracking of aerial vehicles even
in cluttered environments, simultaneous tracking of multiple
Birds Civilian aircraft
Building clutter Mountain clutter
Target UAV
Transmitted pulses
Pulse width
Target range = Ƭc/2 Listening time
Pulse repetition interval
t
Ƭ
Received pulse
t
θ
Foliage clutter
North
φ
Moving clutter on roads
Fig. 1: Detection of a UAV using a conventional pulse radar. Different types
of clutter are also shown. Here τ denotes time delay and c is the speed of
light.
aerial vehicles, seamless integration with diverse sensors (air-
borne, ground, and sea-based), and operational adaptability
across various terrains [2], [3]. Also, the extensive training
data of different terrains and potential aerial vehicles aided
with artificial intelligence (AI) classification algorithms have
helped in the real-time classification of different types of aerial
vehicles in complex environments. Furthermore, the 5G and
beyond are envisioned to use joint sensing and communica-
tions [4] that rely on radar technology.
The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology is cur-
rently one of the fastest-growing technologies in the world.
According to [5], the overall UAV global market share (in
the military, law enforcement, government, commercial, and
consumer domains) is estimated at $27.4 billion in 2021 and
is expected to reach $58.4 billion by 2026. However, there
are many incidents around the world in the recent decade
when UAVs are used for malicious purposes, e.g., [6], [7].
Malicious UAV detection, tracking, and classification (e.g.,
distinguishing from hobbyist UAVs and birds) are challenging
to both conventional and modern radar systems at desired
ranges. This is mainly due to the small size, complex shapes,
and non-metallic construction material of UAVs, and their
ability to fly close to terrain. Moreover, their simple design
and ease of manufacturing from off-the-shelf components,
and diverse types have made countermeasures against UAVs

challenging.
The UAVs used by amateur users may also introduce major
threats if their users do not follow regulatory rules [21]–
[23]. With all these, it is critically important to find ways to
counter malicious UAVs as well as unintended threats from
amateur UAVs [8], [23]. Fig. 1 shows a basic UAV detection
scenario using a pulse radar. The different types of clutter
that can affect the detection and tracking of the UAV are
also shown. There are numerous research efforts carried out in
academia and industry to counter the threats and challenges of
malicious UAVs. According to a NATO Review Report [24],
the global share of UAV countering technologies is expected
at $6.6 billion by 2024.
There are different methods available in the literature for
the detection, tracking, and classification of malicious UAVs.
Popular methods include radar systems, electro-optical/infra-
red (EO/IR) imaging, radio frequency (RF) analysis, and
sound/noise analysis of UAVs [8]. Radar systems are dom-
inantly used compared to other techniques [8], [25], [26].
However, the probability of miss detection for UAVs using
radar systems is high mainly due to the small radar cross
section (RCS), RCS similarity to RCS of birds, and high ma-
neuverability close to the terrain. Moreover, as UAVs are used
for different applications and recreational purposes without a
centralized traffic management and monitoring system, it is
sometimes difficult to learn about the intent of the UAV flight.
Alternatively, or as a complementary approach, communi-
cation systems that have generally good coverage in densely
populated urban areas can be used for DCT-U. Joint communi-
cations and sensing (JC&S) systems generally based on mobile
communication networks can be used for communications and
target detection in active mode efficiently utilizing the avail-
able spectrum [16]. Moreover, the transmissions from popular
communication systems, e.g., long-term evolution (LTE) and
frequency modulation (FM) broadcasts can be analyzed pas-
sively to detect, track, and classify UAVs [27]. DCT-U can also
be performed by passively analyzing communication signals
of opportunity emitted from UAVs using RF anlyzers [28].
A. Existing Surveys and Reviews in the Literature
There are studies available in the literature that provide a
review of efforts for DCT-U. Table I provides a comparison of
our survey with related existing surveys. The scope and topics
covered in this survey compared to existing surveys are high-
lighted in Table I. In [8], threats and countermeasures against
malicious UAVs were covered. The countermeasures included
radar and non-radar methods. In [9], a review was provided for
the detection and classification of small UAVs using radars.
For the efficient detection of small UAVs, portable, highly
mobile, inexpensive, and highly efficient radar systems were
suggested. The technical requirements and implementation
details were also provided in the paper. In [10], a survey on
cyber and physical threats from UAVs was covered. Different
methods were also reviewed in the survey for DCT-U. In
[11], recent advances in the detection and classification of
rotary wing UAVs and birds using radar systems in complex
scenarios were discussed. The study covered echo modeling,
2
fretting characteristics recognition, the fusion of distributed
multi-view features for UAV detection, and classification using
deep learning.
Counter-UAV methods and systems were studied in [12],
which included discussions on techniques such as radar, data
fusion, passive RF, acoustic, vision, and jamming. The chal-
lenges in countering UAVs and future trends were also covered
in the survey. In [29], different approaches using radar systems
for the detection and localization of UAVs in academia and in-
dustry were provided. The hardware and software methods and
commonly used localization algorithms were also discussed
in the survey. In [13], detailed information was provided on
counter-UAV systems. The counter-UAV systems were divided
into ground and aerial platforms. The ground platform-based
counter-UAV system consisted of mobile, static, and human-
packable sensors, whereas, the aerial platform consisted of low
and high-altitude sensors.
Several surveys have explored the use of communication
systems for DCT of various targets, including UAVs. JC&S
approaches were investigated in previous surveys [16], [17].
Additionally, in [18], [19], comprehensive reviews were pre-
sented for the utilization of communication systems as a means
of illuminating UAVs for passive DCT. In [20], a review study
on DCT-U based on RF SOO emitted by UAVs was provided.
Table I provides a comparison of the topics covered and the
scope of the existing literature in survey papers, contrasting it
with the contents of this survey. The numerical values, ranging
from 0 to 2 in Table I, signify the extent of coverage for
each respective topic, and letters A to H represent the topics
covered.
B. Contributions and Organization of This Survey
Comparing our work with the available literature, we have
provided a comprehensive survey on the capabilities and
potential threats from UAVs and different methods for DCT-
U. We have provided three RF-based methods for DCT-
U. These three RF-based methods include radar systems,
communication systems, and RF analyzers. The three RF-
based methods for DCT-U and their corresponding sections
in the paper are highlighted in Fig. 3. Non-RF methods for
DCT-U based on acoustic, EO/IR, lidar, and sensor fusion are
also briefly covered in this survey. Furthermore, the limitations
of RF and non-RF methods for DCT-U and possible future
trends are also discussed. To the best of the knowledge of the
authors, there is no detailed survey available in the literature
that provides comprehensive details on the threats from UAVs
and challenges in the DCT-U and different methods (RF and
non-RF) to counter malicious UAVs and it is our goal to fill
this gap. Table I provides a comparison of our survey with
already available related surveys.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
discusses the basics of radar systems for DCT-U. The existing
and future aerial threats and challenging features of UAVs
that make it difficult to detect and track them are provided in
Section III. Section IV reviews different types of conventional
and modern radar systems for DCT-U, Section V covers
communication systems used for DCT-U, Section VI discusses
 3

TABLE I
C OMPARISON OF THE SCOPE AND TOPICS COVERED IN THIS SURVEY WITH EXISTING POPULAR RELATED SURVEYS . T HE COMPARED TOPICS ARE
PROVIDED IN F IG . 2. I N THE TABLE , L, M, AND H ARE USED TO REPRESENT THE EXTENT OF THE COVERAGE OF TOPICS , RESPECTIVELY, WHERE L
REPRESENTS NO / NEGLIGIBLE COVERAGE , M REPRESENTS BASIC COVERAGE , AND H REPRESENTS HIGH COVERAGE .

Ref. Scope S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11

[8] The future design, threats, and challenges from UAVs, and radar and H M M M M L L M H L M
non-radar methods for the detection, tracking, and classification of
UAVs available in the literature are covered
[9] In this survey, different detection schemes for UAVs using radar M M H L L L L L M L L
systems are provided. The main focus of the paper is to highlight the
requirement for new radar systems that can detect small, slow, and
low-flying UAVs
[10] The survey covers different cyber and physical threats from UAVs. H M M H M L L M M L M
Popular radar and non-radar methods for the detection, tracking, and
interdiction of UAVs are also covered
[11] This survey focuses on different methods for the detection and M M H M H L L L H L L
classification of UAVs and birds
[12] In this survey state-of-the-art methods for the detection of UAVs are H M M H H L M M H L M
provided. Moreover, different interdiction methods for countering
non-cooperative UAVs are discussed
[13] In this survey detection, tracking, classification, and disabling of H M M M H L L M H L H
malicious UAVs using different sensors placed at the ground and
aerial platforms is discussed. A discussion of the current and future
market growth of UAVs is also provided
[14] State-of-the-art research for the DCT-U using different sensors and M M M M M L L M M L M
machine learning algorithms is provided in this survey
[15] In this survey, different detection and defense techniques against M M M M M L L H M L M
UAVs using RF-based systems implemented using SDR are provided
[16] This survey provides joint communication and sensing challenges L H M L L H L L M M L
and solutions employing mobile networks
[17] In this survey different signal processing techniques for JC&S are L H M L L H L L L L L
discussed
[18] In this survey, use of LTE as a source of illumination for passive L L L L L L H L L L L
radars and corresponding applications are provided
[19] Detection and tracking of UAVs using passive DVB-T radar is M L L L L L H L L L L
discussed in this survey
[20] In this survey detection and classification of UAVs using RF-based M L L L L L H L L L L
techniques and machine learning are discussed
Our In this work, we have provided a comprehensive survey on the H H H H H H H H H H H
survey capabilities of UAVs, threats and challenges from malicious UAVs,
DCT-U using radar, communication systems, RF analyzers, and
non-RF systems. The limitations of radar, communication systems,
RF analyzers, and non-RF systems for DCT-U are also provided

Topics Discussed in Existing Related Surveys

S1: Threats and S2: DCT-U S3: DCT-U S4: DCT-U S5: Limitations S6: JC\&S S7: Passive S8: DCT-U S9:Limitations S10: S11:
challenges using modern using using non-RF of non-RF systems that DCT-U using using passive of radar Limitations of Limitations of
from UAVs radar systems conventional methods, methods for can be used communication RF SOO systems communication RF analyzers.
radar systems (EO/IR, DCT-U for DCT-U signal of radiated from systems
acoustic, opportunity~ UAVs
sensor fusion) (SOO)

Fig. 2: Topics discussed in existing related surveys for comparison with our survey.

different RF analyzers that passively capture RF SOO radiated
from UAVs for DCT-U, the future directions based on the
lessons learned are provided in Section VII, and finally,
Section VIII concludes the paper. The complete structure of
the paper is outlined in Fig. 4 and the abbreviations used in
the paper are provided in Table II.
II. R ADIO WAVES AND R ADAR BASICS
In this section, the basics of radio wave propagation and
radar systems including the interaction of radio waves with
aerial vehicles and surroundings, radar parameters, and asso-
ciated signal processing techniques are discussed.
A. Radio Waves Interaction with the Aerial Vehicles and
Surroundings
A simple radar system is based on capturing the reflected
radio waves from a desired object. The detection of an aerial
vehicle using radio waves depends on the physical and motion
characteristics of the target and surrounding environment. The
 4

Radar Systems Communication Systems Passive Monitoring of Signals of

Section IV: DCT-U using conventional and modern
radar systems
IV-A: Conventional radar systems for DCT-U
IV-B: Detection and tracking of UAVs using modern
radar systems
IV-C: Classification of UAVs using modern radar
systems
Section V: DCT-U using communication systems
V-C: DCT-U using JC&S
V-D: DCT-U using communication systems in passive
mode
V-E: Limitations of communication systems for DCT-U
Opportunity
Section VI: DCT-U using passive monitoring of RF
signals of opportunity radiated from UAVs
VI-A: RF signals radiated from UAV for DCT-U
VI-B: Communication systems for capturing RF
signals radiated from UAVs for DCT-U
VI-C: Limitations of passively capturing RF SOO
radiated from UAVs

UAV
UAV UAV

Radar Cell tower Cell tower RF sensor

Fig. 3: Three RF-based methods for DCT-U provided in the survey. The details of DCT-U using the three methods are provided in the corresponding sections.
Furthermore, a brief introduction of non-RF systems and their limitations for DCT-U is provided in Section III-D.

physical characteristics of an aerial vehicle are estimated using
the RCS of the aerial vehicle by the radar. The RCS of an aerial
vehicle σ is given as
|Es |2
σ = lim 4πR2 , (1)
R→∞ |Ei |2
where R is the slant range between radar and aerial vehicle,
while Ei and Es are the incident and scattered electric fields
from an aerial vehicle, respectively. The RCS of an aerial
vehicle depends on the frequency, polarization, angle of illu-
mination, geometry, and electrical properties of the material of
the aerial vehicle. The RCS can also be used for classification.
In [30], RCS of six different types of UAVs measured at
15 GHz and 25 GHz were used for classification. The RCS of
four UAVs measured at 15 GHz and 25 GHz and at respective
polarization pairs of vertical-vertical and horizontal-horizontal
are provided in Fig. 5.
The motion characteristics of an aerial vehicle include
velocity, pitch, yaw, roll angles, and rate of climb. The major
motion characteristic is velocity. The velocity of an aerial
vehicle is generally obtained by measuring the Doppler shift in
frequency of the received radio signal given as fd = 2v cos λ
α
, the propagation characteristics of radio waves [36], [37].
where v is the velocity of the aerial vehicle, α is the angle
between the radar’s line of sight towards the aerial vehicle
and direction of travel of the aerial vehicle, and λ is the
wavelength. In addition to the main Doppler shift fd , there
are additional Doppler shifts due to the motion/rotation of sub-
parts of the aerial vehicle. Such additional Doppler shifts at
the micro level are categorized as micro-Doppler, which is
a helpful feature often used in the classification of an aerial
vehicle [31].
The collection of radio wave reflections (specular and
diffuse) from objects that are not of interest such as build-
ings and other man-made structures, birds, trees, and hills
constitute radar clutter [32]. The radar clutter can be static
or dynamic. A major source of static clutter is the ground/sea
surface reflection [33]. Dynamic clutter can be from moving
vehicles/objects in the environment, e.g., moving cars, flying
planes, the rotation of wind turbines, and the movement
of foliage. The clutter is related to the angular and range
resolution of a radar system. If the angular resolution is small
(i.e., large beamwidth) large clutter is observed and vice versa.
If the range resolution is high, the clutter can be differentiated
from the aerial vehicle, and the signal-to-clutter ratio increases.
The clutter cross-section can be thousands of times larger than
the cross-section of the aerial vehicle observed by radar.
The propagation of radio waves also depends on the terrain
and atmospheric effects. The propagation effects (reflection,
diffraction, and scattering) on radio waves will be different
in different terrains. Therefore, a radar system working in
a rural terrain will require calibration before it can operate
in an urban terrain. The radio waves also suffer propagation
losses due to atmospheric absorption in addition to free space
loss [34]. Atmospheric conditions, e.g., rain, hail, snow, and
upper atmospheric conditions can directly affect the detection
by radar [35]. The rain, hail, snow, fog, and other precipitation
conditions can result in echoes from these particles that
superimpose the target echoes. The atmospheric effects, e.g.,
wind in a forest area or strong air currents at sea can also affect
B. Radar Parameters
There are different radar parameters that can affect DCT-U.
Major radar parameters are transmit power, sounding signal,
pulse width (PW) and duty cycle, pulse repetition inter-
val (PRI), frequency and bandwidth, modulation and coding,
intrapulse modulation, and antenna parameters. The transmit
power of radars can vary from a few milliwatts to megawatts.
The transmit power is mainly dependent on the application
and is constrained by the platform. The high transmit power
allows a greater range for radar systems by overcoming free
space attenuation. To detect UAVs with small RCS at long
ranges, large transmit power is often required.
Different signal waveforms used by radar systems are
provided in Fig. 6. Mainly the waveforms are divided into
 5

Radio waves interaction with the aerial

vehicles and surroundings (II.A)
Radio waves and
Radar basics
Radar parameters (II.B)
(Section II)

Popular radar signal processing techniques (II.C)

Capabilities and features of common UAVs (III.A)

Analysis of Threats, and challenges from UAVs (III.B)

aerial threat
and challenges Limitations of radar systems (III.C)
(Section III)

Non-RF systems and their limitations (III.D)

1. Bistatic and multistatic radars
Contributions and organization of this survey (I.B)

2. Cognitive radars
3. Software-defined radio-based radars
DCT-U using Conventional radar systems for DCT-U (IV.A) 4. Interferometric radars
conventional 5. MIMO radars
and modern Detection and tracking of UAVs using modern radar systems (IV.B) 6. Passive radars
radar systems 7. Compressed sensing-based radars
(Section IV) 8. Microwave photonic radars
Classification of UAVs using modern radar systems (IV.C)
9. Monopulse radars
10. Polarimetric radars
11. Airborne radars

Similarities and differences of communication and

radar systems (V.A)
1. Active JC&S using different signals for
communications and sensing
Advantages of communication systems for DCT-U (V.B) 2. Active JC&S using the same signals for
DCT-U using
communication communications and sensing
systems DCT-U using JC&S (V.C) 3. Active distributed JC&S systems
4. Active JC&S using cognitive radios
Introduction (Section I)

(Section V)
DCT-U using communication systems in passive mode 5. Active radar-centric JC&S design
(V.D) 6. Active communication-centric JC&S design
7. Active non-centric JS&S design
Limitations of communication systems for DCT-U (V.E)
1. GSM
2. LTE
3. 5G and beyond
4. WiFi
Existing surveys and reviews in the literature (I.A)

5. Digital audio broadcast

6. Digital video broadcast terrestrial
7. Satellites
DCT-U using RF signals radiated from UAV for DCT-U (VI.A)
passive
monitoring of RF Communication systems for capturing RF Signals radiated from
signals of UAVs for DCT-U (VI.B)
opportunity
radiated from
UAVs (Section VI) Limitations of passively capturing RF SOO (VI.C)

Communication systems (VII.A)

Single long-range high-resolution radar (VII.D)

Quantum radars (VII.J)

Hybrid radars (VII.K)

Sparse signal processing (VII.I)

Open-ended, modular, and reconfigurable design (VII.H)

Future directions Resilience to ECM (VII.L)
(Section VII)
Laser-based techniques (VII.B)

Distributed sensors and sensor fusion (VII.C)

Regulating the UAV air traffic (VII.E)

Airborne UAVs (VII.G)

Space assets (VII.F)

Exploring cost-effective solutions (VII.M)

Fig. 4: Overall structure of this survey paper.

pulse and continuous wave (CW) waveforms. Pulse and CW tems. However, pulse radar systems have a high dynamic range
waveforms are further divided into other waveform types. Each due to the isolation of transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX). The
waveform in Fig. 6 has specific use and advantage. Overall, high dynamic range allows long-range detection capability.
CW radar systems are simpler compared to pulse radar sys- Furthermore, continuous high-energy transmissions are not
 6

TABLE II
A BBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS PAPER .
Acronym Text Acronym Text
AESA active electronically scanned array MTI moving target indicator
AAM advanced air mobility MMPAR multifunction multibeam phased array radar
AM amplitude modulation MIMO multiple input multiple output
AI artificial intelligence MUSIC multiple signal classification
ADS-B automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast protocol NLOS non-LOS
BS base station OFDMA orthogonal frequency-division multiple access
CIR channel impulse response OFDM orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing
CSI channel state information OTFS orthogonal time frequency space
CFAR constant false alarm rate PCL passive coherent location
CW continuous wave PESA passive electronically scanned array
CNN convolutional neural network PDF probability density function
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency PFA probability of false alarm
DCT-U detection, classification, and tracking of UAVs PN pseudorandom
DAB Digital audio broadcast PRF pulse repetition frequency
DVB-S Digital Video Broadcast satellite PRI pulse repetition interval
DVB-T Digital Video Broadcast terrestrial PW pulse width
ECCM electronic countercountermeasures RATR radar automatic target recognition
ECM electronic countermeasures RCS radar cross section
EO/IR electro-optical/infrared RF radio frequency
FFT fast Fourier transform RX receiver
FAA Federal Aviation Administration SOO signals of opportunity
FSR forward scattering radar SNR signal-to-noise ratio
FM frequency modulation SDR software-defined radio
FMCW frequency-modulated continuous wave SVM support vector machine
GSM global system for mobile communication SAR synthetic aperture radar
GBM grading boosting method TX transmitter
GS ground station UHF ultra high frequency
HRRP high range resolution profile UWB ultra-wideband
IoT Internet of things USRP universal software radio peripheral
JC&S joint communications and sensing UAV unmanned aerial vehicle
LOS line-of-sight UTM unmanned aircraft system traffic management
LTE long-term evolution VHF very high frequency

possible from a single TX/RX antenna (monostatic radar) and
it can damage the RX if not stopped by a Duplexer. Therefore,
a listening time is required for pulse radars. The listening time
is constrained by the duty cycle, PW, and PRI.
The peak power, average power, PW, PRI, pulse repetition
frequency (PRF), and duty cycle for a radar pulse train shown
in Fig. 7 are related to each other as follows [38]:
duty cycle = Pavg /Pp = γ/Tr = γ × fr ,
where Pavg is the average power, Pp is the peak power, γ
is the PW, Tr is the PRI, and fr is the PRF. The parameters
of short and long pulse radar test waveforms are provided
in Table III, and Table IV, respectively. The design of both
short and long pulse radar test waveforms in Table III, and
Table IV, respectively, are based on the compliance measure-
ment procedure outlined by the FCC for unlicensed devices.
Noticeably, the short pulse waveforms have a higher number of
pulses per burst compared to long pulse waveforms, whereas,
the PW of short pulse waveforms is significantly smaller
than the long pulse waveforms as expected. The minimum
percentage of successful detection and PRI is higher for long-
pulse waveforms compared to short-pulse waveforms.
The majority of the radar systems operate between 400 MHz
to 36 GHz frequency range. The use of a particular frequency
band depends on 1) the role of the radar, i.e., search, tracking,
or guidance; 2) the type of aerial vehicles expected to detect
and track; 3) the terrain; 4) the platform over which radar is
mounted; and 5) range of the radar. The long-range search
radar uses low frequencies generally VHF and UHF bands.
The low frequencies allow long-range detection capabilities.
The close-range tracking and guidance radar systems require
higher resolution and narrow beams compared to search radars
and therefore use higher frequencies compared to search
radars. The different frequency bands used by radar systems
and corresponding applications are provided in Table V. Major
applications of high-frequency bands are close-range targeting,
(2)
tracking, and high-resolution imaging, e.g., for small RCS
UAVs, whereas, low-frequency bands are mainly used for
long-range target detection.
The bandwidth of a radar is an important parameter and
determines the range resolution of the target. The bandwidth
of a pulse radar is equal to the reciprocal of the transmitted
PW. The range resolution of a radar is dependent on the
bandwidth or PW. The greater the bandwidth, the better the
range resolution. The bandwidth and the signal power (or
range) are exchangeable due to the dependence of both on the
PW. Ultra-wideband (UWB) radars are popular due to their
large bandwidth (high range resolution) [40]. The multipath
components from a UWB radar can be resolved in the order
of centimeters, therefore, fine details of the aerial vehicle or
image can be obtained. The large bandwidth is also helpful in
distinguishing an aerial vehicle from the clutter.
Different types of modulations are used by different types
of radar systems [41]. Modulation types for the CW and
pulse radar are shown in Fig. 6. In addition to basic pulse
modulations, pulse radar can use phase and frequency intra-
 7

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 5: The RCS of four different UAVs measured at 15 GHz and 25 GHz using vertical-vertical and horizontal-horizontal polarization (regenerated from
[30]). The measured RCS (in dBsm) is plotted against the azimuth angle for the range [0◦ 360◦ ]. The four UAVs are (a) DJI Matrice 600 Pro, (b) DJI Matrice
100, (c) Trimble zx5, and (d) DJI Mavic Pro 1.

Radar waveforms

Pulse radar
CW radar

On-off Pulse-pulse Frequency Intra-pulse Multiple Unmodulated

keyed frequency CW FMCW CW
modulation agile waveform modulation

Frequency
Phase modulation
modulation

Linear FM Non-linear FM Frequency

• Sawtooth • Triangle shift keying
Poly-phase
Bi-phase • Pseudo-random
modulation
modulation • Noise modulated
• Wetti code
• Barker code • Stepped frequency
• Frank code
• Costas-code
• Sinusoidal
• Sawtooth

Fig. 6: Different types of radar waveforms.

pulse modulations. Similarly, frequency-modulated continuous quency intrapulse modulations as shown in Fig. 6. The major
wave (FMCW) radar can have different types of phase and fre- benefit of intra-pulse modulations is higher range resolution
 8

TABLE III
S HORT PULSE RADAR TEST WAVEFORM ( ADAPTED FROM [39]).
Type of PW (µs) PRI (µs) Number of pulses Minimum percentage Minimum number of
Radar of successful detection trials
0 1 1428  18
See note 1 in [39] See note 1 in [39]
19.106
1


1 1 Test A, and Test B, Roundup 360 . PRI
60% 30
in [39]
2 1-5 150-230 23-29 60% 30
3 6-10 200-500 16-18 60% 30
4 11-20 200-500 12-16 60% 30

TABLE IV
L ONG PULSE RADAR TEST WAVEFORM ( ADAPTED FROM [39]).
Type of PW (µs) Chirp width PRI (µs) Number of pulses Number of Minimum Minimum
radar (MHz) per burst bursts percentage of number of trials
successful detection
5 50-100 5-20 1000-2000 1-3 8-20 80% 30

mechanical assembly for rotation. The electronically scanned

3S 5)3XOVHWUDLQ
1 phased arrays are further divided into passive and active
types [32]. Active electronically scanned array (AESA) is
commonly used in modern radar systems. Analog, digital, or
0.5 Ȗ hybrid beamforming can be used in AESA [45].

C. Popular Radar Signal Processing Techniques

Power

0
3DYJ
-0.5
-1
7U
0 1 2 3
Time
Fig. 7: An RF pulse train showing the PW, PRI, and pulse peak and average
power.
without compromising the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) [42].
The phase intrapulse modulations are further divided into
bi-phase and poly-phase modulations whereas the frequency
intrapulse modulations are further divided into linear and non-
linear FM and frequency shift keying. The bi-phase and poly-
phase intrapulse modulations use different codes shown in
Fig. 6. Sequences of numbers of different lengths are used in
these codes. Other radar coding schemes are provided in [43],
[44].
Directional antennas are mainly used by radar systems
for the detection and tracking of aerial vehicles. The high
gain (and narrow beamwidth in the azimuth and elevation
planes) from a
directional antenna helps to achieve long-
range see (3) , fine clutter rejection and high angular res-
olution. In addition, the position of the narrow beamwidth
directional beam can be used to roughly estimate the po-
sition of the aerial vehicle. Popular radar antennas were
simple parabolic reflectors and Cassegrain feed parabolic
reflectors that were mechanically rotated. Nowadays, electron-
ically scanned phased arrays are used that require minimum
The majority of the signal processing techniques are similar
for different types of radar systems. The main signal process-
ing takes place at the radar RX. The common signal processing
units at the radar RX include an analog-to-digital converter,
low-noise amplifier, frequency mixer and filter, matched filter,
and threshold detector. The maximum detection range of a
commonly used radar is given as
4  41
PT G2 λ2 σ

Rmax = , (3)
PR,min (4π)3 L
where Rmax is the maximum range for the radar, PT is
the transmit power, G is the antenna gain, PR,min is the
minimum received power, and L represent the total losses.
The detection of multiple targets using a commonly used
pulse radar is challenging due to range ambiguity. Radar-based
signal processing techniques, for example, provided in [46]–
[48] can be used for the detection and tracking of multiple
targets simultaneously.
Generally, a target is tracked using its position and velocity
information. The track equation for radar is given as
PT G2 λ2 σ
S/N = , (4)
(4π)3 R4 kTs Bn L
where S/N is the SNR, k is the Boltzman constant, Ts is the
system noise temperature, and Bn is the noise bandwidth of
the RX. The average noise power is represented by kTs Bn .
There are different tracking algorithms available in the lit-
erature. In [49] FMCW radar and MUSIC algorithm were
used for multiple UAV tracking. In particular, two different
UAVs were tracked simultaneously in an open area using the
MUSIC algorithm at low altitudes. In [50], high-resolution
radar and Hough transform were used for tracking small UAVs.
Hough transform provided a steady and continuous tracking of
 9

TABLE V
D IFFERENT FREQUENCY BANDS FOR RADARS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS .
Radar band Frequency (GHz) Popular applications
Millimeter 40-100 UAV detection, tracking, and navigation, airborne radar, spaceborne radar, SAR
Ka 26.5–40 Airborne close range targeting, airport surveillance, traffic speed detection, SAR
K 18–26.5 Small UAV detection, airborne close range targeting, traffic speed detection
Ku 12.5–18 High resolution mapping, satellite altimetry, air-traffic control, air-borne radar
X 8–12.5 Short range tracking, guidance, UAV detection and tracking, marine radar, air-traffic control
C 4–8 Long range tracking, weather monitoring, SAR
S 2–4 Moderate range surveillance, air-traffic control, weather monitoring, surface ship radar
L 1–2 Long range surveillance, small UAV detection, atmospheric studies, air-traffic control, SAR
UHF 0.3–1 Very long range early warning against aerial threats, anti-stealth
VHF 0.03 to 0.3 Very long range early warning against aerial threats, anti-stealth

UAV using a linearly distributed micro-Doppler signature. The
Hough transform helped to resolve the problem of scatterer
clustering. Moreover, there are different methods available in
the literature for the localization of a moving object based on
target tracks [51]–[53]. Kalman and particle filters are also
popular for the localization and tracking of mobile nodes with
radars [54].
In a pulse radar system, the coherent integration of received
pulses is used to increase the SNR. The coherent integration
requires both the in-phase and quadrature components of the
received signal. Furthermore, compressed sensing can be used
for sparse radar signals and a reduced number of sample
scenarios. For example in [55], [56], compressed sensing was
used in the reconstruction of the sparse target scene that helped
in the detection of the target in complex scenarios. Other radar
estimation problems, e.g., finding the high-resolution direction
of arrival of signals from multiple sources at a single snapshot
were obtained through compressed sensing techniques in [57].
Doppler processing is essential for estimating the velocity
of an aerial vehicle in all the radar systems. The frequency
shift of the received signal from the center frequency is used to
obtain the Doppler shift and subsequently the velocity estimate
of the aerial vehicle. Micro-Doppler processing can also be
used to obtain the micro-Doppler signature of a moving aerial
vehicle. In older radar systems, RCS and the velocity of an
aerial vehicle were used for classification. However, nowa-
days, modern classification algorithms use additional target
features for classification, e.g., micro-Doppler signature. The
classification is also aided by AI algorithms. Deep learning
AI algorithms help to accurately identify the type of the aerial
vehicle [58], [59].
III. A NALYSIS OF A ERIAL T HREATS AND C HALLENGES
In this section, the capabilities of UAVs, current and future
aerial threats and challenges from UAVs, and limitations of
radar systems in DCT-U are provided. A brief discussion of
are provided. From Table VI it can be observed that the
UAVs have in general small size, weight, power consumption,
heat signature, and RCS compared to manned aerial vehicles.
Moreover, fixed-wing and rotary-wing UAVs offer medium
flight endurance, payload capacity, flight ceiling, and speed.
The cost of UAVs is also significantly small and can be easily
produced in large numbers using simple design and readily
available off-the-shelf components. The simple design allows
various sizes of UAVs. For example, a UAV can fit into the
palm of a hand to a wing span of more than 43 m. The
capabilities of UAVs are summarized in Fig. 8.
B. Threats and Challenges from UAVs
UAVs operated by amateur users who do not follow regula-
tions pose a significant threat to the surroundings. Moreover,
UAVs can be used by non-state actors for malicious purposes.
Examples of major current and future threats from malicious
UAVs can be listed as follows: 1) use by non-state actors
during conflicts; 2) conventional, biological, and chemical
threats carried by UAVs; 3) threats to sensitive infrastructure,
e.g., dams, bridges, important buildings, power generation
plants, chemical, and nuclear facilities; 4) threats to important
persons, vehicles, and locations; 5) threats to crowded areas;
6) malicious activities e.g., starting a fire, and identity theft;
7) smuggling of contraband articles using UAVs; 8) threats to
the aviation industry; 9) planting improvised explosive devices,
and mines on ground and at sea; 10) hacking UAVs and flying
them for malicious purposes; 11) eavesdropping; 12) ECM
using UAVs; 13) use as decoys; 14) different types of UAVs
flying in a swarm; and 15) threats from high-altitude flying
platforms, e.g. hot-air balloons that can fly at high altitudes
and carry large payloads.
There are many challenges to the accurate and timely DCT-
U. The major such challenges due to the unique capabilities
of UAVs are summarized in Fig. 8 and given as follows:
• Multiple types and shapes of UAVs are difficult to clas-

non-RF systems and their limitations in the DCT-U are also
provided.
A. Capabilities and Features of Common UAVs
There are different types of UAVs available. Table VI shows
the major types and specifications of typical UAVs. In Table VI
maximum values of size, flight endurance, payload capacity,
flight ceiling, and speed for UAVs sorted from the internet
sify.
• UAVs flying in a discontinuous flight path are difficult to
detect and track. For example, multiple landings during
the flight of a UAV at random intervals can pose chal-
lenges to detection and tracking.
• Hybrid UAVs that can fly and move over land and water
can achieve long operational ranges.
• Modular design and changes during the flight of UAVs,
e.g., the continuous disintegration of UAVs into multiple
 10

TABLE VI
C OMMON FEATURES AND SPECIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF UAV S . I N THE TABLE , L, W , AND H REPRESENT THE LENGTH , WIDTH , AND
HEIGHT, RESPECTIVELY. T HE PROVIDED DATA IS TAKEN FROM DIFFERENT INTERNET SOURCES .

Specifications of different types of UAVs

UAV type Single/multi-rotor Flat/tilt wing Hot air balloons Satellites
Max. Size (L×W ×H) 1m×1m×0.63m 14m×1.7m×4m 17m×17m×24.5m 73m×109m×20m
Airframe material Carbon fiber Carbon fiber Nylon, polyester Aluminum alloys
Max. flight Endurance 3 hours 42 hours 475 hours 15 years
Max. payload capacity 8 kg 100 kg 600 kg 29,000 kg
Max. flight ceiling 6 km 18 km 21 km 35786 km
Max. speed 29 m/s 130 m/s 4.47 m/s 3138.9 m/s
Propulsion System Propeller Propeller NA Chemical thrusters
Operating frequencies 900 MHz - 5.8 GHz 900 MHz - 5.8 GHz 123.3 - 123.5 MHz L, C, X, Ku, Ka band
Navigation Internal/external Internal/external NA Internal/external
Heat signature Small Very small Large Small
RCS Small Small/medium Large Large

Capabilities of UAVs Major challenges for DCT-U

Challenges due to UAV physical characteristics:

Flight characteristics:
▪ Low flying
▪ Variable speeds and flight attitudes
▪ Long flight endurance
▪ High maneuverability
▪ Terrain hugging during flight
▪ Collision avoidance during flight
▪ Day and night flight capability
Physical characteristics:
▪ Rugged
▪ Can operate on different types of
energy sources
▪ Ability to carry different types of
payloads
▪ Ability to change shape during flight
Navigation and control:
▪ Multiple sizes, types, and shapes
▪ Can use different types of navigation
▪ Small RCS, and low infrared and acoustic
options
signatures
▪ Fly autonomously or remotely controlled
▪ Modular design and run-time structural changes
▪ Navigation through complex terrain, e.g.,
during flight
dense urban at low altitude
▪ Low cost, simple design, built from readily
available components, and can be produced in
Sensors:
▪ Can be equipped with different types of large numbers in short duration
sensors
Challenges due to UAV flight characteristics:
▪ Real-time situational awareness using
▪ Ability to maneuver close to terrain and fly at
sensors
high altitudes
▪ Flight profile of many UAVs like birds
Launching and landing:
▪ Autonomous flights possible
▪ Can be launched from the ground, aircraft,
▪ Can fly in swarms independently or networked
or ship
▪ Can be used as decoys
▪ Ability to land on rough terrains

Fig. 8: The capabilities of UAVs and major challenges in DCT-U due to characteristics of the UAVs.

autonomous UAVs can make detection, tracking, and
classification challenging.
• Smart structural modifications of UAVs using AI and 3D
printing during flight can make DCT-U difficult.
• UAVs can use AI to make autonomous run-time deci-
sions based on the environment, clutter, and RF emis-
sions in the environment and find the optimum route.
AI-controlled autonomous UAVs have better situational
awareness and are difficult to detect and track. Moreover,
trajectory control of UAVs using multiple sources, e.g.,
onboard smartphones, and navigation using telecommu-
nication coverage can make the UAV resilient to different
RF countermeasures.
• Another major challenge is the classification of small,
low-flying UAVs from birds and the identification of
malicious UAVs from hobbyist UAVs.
• UAVs flying in a swarm are difficult to detect, track,
and classify [9], [60], [61] especially when they fly at
different altitudes and at different velocities in a specific
trajectory are difficult to detect, track, and classify.
• Decoy UAVs that exist either physically or created virtu-
ally using ECM techniques for deception in a swarm can
result in the wastage of resources on their detection and
tracking.
• UAVs can be produced in large numbers due to simple
design and off-the-shelf readily available components. On
the flip side, effectively countering UAVs necessitates
highly sophisticated systems. However, it’s important to
note that these advanced counter-UAV systems come with
a considerable financial burden, making them expensive
to acquire and manage.
• In a complex environment, e.g., in a dense urban area with
high-rise buildings and dynamic clutter (from civilian
planes, cars, pedestrians, and birds), the detection and
tracking of small UAVs becomes challenging.
C. Limitations of Radar Systems
DCT-U of typical UAVs is challenging due to their unique
capabilities discussed earlier. While radar is the most popular
sensor for DCT-U, there are some common limitations of radar
systems listed as follows:
 11

TABLE VII
RCS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF UAV S USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF RADAR SYSTEMS .
UAV type RCS Center frequency Sounding signal Ref.
DJI Matrice 600 Pro, DJI Matrice 100, Lognormal, generalized 15 GHz, 25 GHz CW [62]
Trimble zx5, DJI Mavic Pro 1, DJI Inspire extreme value, and gamma
1 Pro, DJI Phantom 4 Pro distributions
DJI Phantom 4 Pro 0.01 m2 25 GHz FMCW [63]
DJI Phantom 3 0.01 m2 Ku band Pulse based phased array radar [64]
Mavic Pro 0.03 m2 2.4 GHz CW, linear frequency modulated [65]
Iris+, X8, and High one See Table II in [66] 3 GHz, 9.7 GHz, Pulse Ku-band short range [66]
15 GHz, and 24.3 GHz battlefield radar
Phantom 3, fixed-wing buzzard Maximum value 0.09 m2 X-band FMCW [67]
UAV 0.08 m2 S-band Pulses [68]

TABLE VIII
C OMPARISON OF DIFFERENT SENSORS OVER A RANGE OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ( ADAPTED FROM [69]).
Long range Short range Airborne RF trian- Clustered EO/IR Airborne
radar with high short gulation audio sensor EO/IR
micro-Doppler frequency range sensors sensor
radar with radar
micro-Doppler
Range Extreme Medium Medium Good Short Medium Medium
Dynamic environment coverage Bad Bad Good Good Good Bad Good
Detection in urban environment Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Bad Good
Detection in darkness Good Good Good Good Good Good Good
Distance to target Good Good Good Good Bad Bad Bad
Speed of target Good Good Good Good Bad Bad Good
Mobility Bad Medium Good Bad Medium Good Good
Detection in fog Good Good Good Good Good Bad Bad
Detection in rain Good Good Medium Good Medium Medium Medium
Weight High Medium Low High Medium Low Low
Rogue UAV detection Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
UAV swarm detection Medium Medium Good Good Good Good Good
Processing power High High High High Low Medium Medium
Power consumption High Low Low Medium Medium Low Low
Low speed UAV detection Good Good Good Good Good Good Good
Low cost Bad Medium Medium Medium Medium Good Good
Maintenance Good Good Bad Good Medium Medium Bad
Installation ease Bad Medium Good Medium Medium Medium Good

• In general, radar systems are inefficient because a large
amount of energy is transmitted, whereas, only a fraction
of the transmitted energy is received back from clutter
and from a potential aerial vehicle. Also, the RF energy
emissions from radar systems expose them to detection.
• The commonly available small UAVs have small RCS.
In addition to the small RCS of UAVs, if radiation-
absorbent material and specific shapes are used, the RCS
of the UAVs can be further reduced. Small RCS UAVs
are difficult to detect by common radar systems at long
ranges and cluttered surroundings. The RCS of different
types of UAVs reported in the literature at different
frequencies are overviewed in Table VII. From Table VII,
it can be observed that the majority of RCS measurements
were carried out at frequency bands > 2 GHz and the
RCS of the majority of commercially available UAVs is
less than 0.1 m2 .
• Extreme flight maneuvers are possible with UAVs due to
the absence of a pilot. For example, UAVs can fly very
close to the terrain to avoid detection by radar systems.
• The range and Doppler ambiguities in popular pulse-
Doppler radars put bounds on the range and velocity
measurements of the target. The range and Doppler am-
biguities become notable when detecting multiple UAVs
at different ranges and velocities, e.g., in a swarm.
• The DCT-U of multiple small UAVs in a swarm requires
high angular and range resolution radar. However, the
scan duration and complexity of the radar system increase
with the increase of the range and angular resolution.
• The detection of small and low-flying UAVs in highly
cluttered environments requires adaptive adjustments of
radar thresholds in order to keep the PFA low.
• The typical radar systems have limitations in tracking
very high altitude, highly maneuverable, and high-speed
UAVs.
• The radar systems are vulnerable to ECM
applied by UAVs and require electronic counter-
countermeasures (ECCM) against ECM. Popular
offensive ECM that can be applied by UAVs include
jamming hostile radio signals, spoofing the radio signals
with false data [70], or transmitting multiple copies
of the echo signals as decoys. The ECCM includes
robust frequency hopping over broadband, multilayered
authentication and encryption of data, detection, and
reporting of jammed strobe, and dedicated RX for
monitoring of the ECM provided in [71], [72].
• Noise, RF interferences, and clutter affect the perfor-
mance of a radar system.

D. Non-RF Systems and their Limitations
The popular non-RF systems for DCT-U are EO/IR and
acoustic. A brief introduction and limitations of these non-RF
systems for DCT-U are as follows:
• Passive imaging sensors such as EO/IR can be used for
DCT-U with high precision. In [73], a review of different
algorithms used for real-time detection of UAVs using
EO sensors was provided. A thermal infrared camera
is used for the nighttime detection of UAVs in [74].
However, in an EO/IR sensor, the complexity of the
target’s background and thermal image saturation affects
the detection and classification performance of the EO/IR
sensors for UAVs. The range of the EO/IR is also limited
by the horizon. The atmospheric effects, e.g., haze, fog,
rain, and snow can affect the performance of EO/IR
sensors.
• Acoustic signals from a flying UAV can be detected
using an acoustic sensor, e.g., a microphone. The acoustic
signals captured by a microphone can also be used for
tracking and classification of UAVs [14], [75]. A major
limitation of acoustic methods is their poor performance
in noisy environments and their range is limited. The
acoustic methods work in the passive mode and a single
acoustic sensor cannot provide precise localization of the
UAV. Furthermore, the acoustic methods work poorly
against high-altitude UAVs.
• Sensor fusion of different sensors can be used for DCT-U.
For example, EO/IR and acoustic sensors can be used in
a network. Multiple heterogeneous sensors can use sensor
fusion to overcome the weaknesses of the individual
sensors and provide combined strength [76]. However,
there are limitations due to networking and delays arising
from the central data processing of different sensors.
A comparison of radar and non-RF systems over different
performance indicators [69] is provided in Table VIII. From
Table VIII, it can be observed that short-range airborne radar
has the overall best performance when detecting UAVs. The
short-range high-frequency radar with micro-Doppler also has
good performance in detecting UAVs compared to other sen-
sors. Furthermore, some of the limitations of the EO/IR sensor
can be overcome by mounting it on the airborne platform.
IV. DCT-U USING C ONVENTIONAL AND M ODERN R ADAR
S YSTEMS
In this section, the literature on the use of conventional and
modern radar systems for DCT-U is covered.
A. Conventional Radar Systems for DCT-U
Conventional radar systems can be categorized as radar
systems that have simple hardware, and basic signal process-
ing and are typically used. For example, a monostatic real
aperture radar with basic signal processing is shown earlier
in the survey in Fig. 1. Pulse Doppler, CW, and FMCW
radars can also be categorized as conventional radars and
are often used for DCT-U. In [77], a pulse Doppler radar
and convolutional neural network (CNN) were used for the
12
PESA radar AESA radar
1 TX/RX 1
2
module
TX/RX 2
TX/RX module
3
module 3
TX/RX
module
N
TX/RX N
module
Phase Antenna
shifters elements HPA is high-power amplifier
LNA is low-noise amplifier
HPA Circulator Amplifiers HPA
LNA LNA
Circulator
Fig. 9: PESA and AESA radars are shown. AESA radars have multiple TX/RX
modules that can work independently and act as individual radars.
detection and localization of UAVs with minimum constant
false alarm rate (CFAR). A two-head CNN was used, one for
the patch of range-Doppler map classification and the other for
the offset regression between the patch center and the target.
Subsequently, a non-maximum suppression was used to keep
CFAR low for small UAVs.
A conventional pulse Doppler radar and Hough transform
were used for the detection and tracking of small UAVs in
[50]. The linear distributed features of micro-Doppler and
Hough transform helped to detect and identify small UAVs. In
[78], a CW radar was used for the detection of small UAVs.
Two stages were used for the detection of UAVs using CW
radar. First was the extraction of UAV parameters using the
Gaussian mixture model and then trajectory extraction using
multi-frame information. In [79], an X-band radar was used
for the detection and tracking of small UAVs with RCS of
.01 m2 . The FMCW radar was able to detect small quadcopter
UAVs at a distance of 20 m to 500 m. The radar was able to
differentiate between two UAVs flying at a distance of 20 m
apart. FMCW radar was also used for the detection of UAVs
in [80]–[82].
Other commonly used radars for DCT-U include marine
and staring radars. In [67] a marine broadband FMCW radar
operating at X-band was used for the detection of two different
types of UAVs. Measurements were carried out to detect rotary
wing and fixed wing UAVs using the marine radar at a distance
of 400 m. Similarly, in [83], low-cost marine radar was used
for the detection of UAVs. The marine radar was mounted on
a UAV and provided 360◦ coverage over a large area. In [84]
a staring radar operating at L-band was used to differentiate
between UAVs and birds. The measurements were taken in an
urban area and the measurement data was used as training data
for classification algorithms. In [85], Aveillant Gamekeeper
staring radar was used for surveillance of non-cooperative
UAVs. The radar operated at L-band and used extended dwell
that helped in small UAV detection over a range of several
kilometers. Moreover, machine learning classifiers were used
to distinguish between UAVs and birds using the 3D radar
data.
B. Detection and Tracking of UAVs Using Modern Radar
Systems
In contrast to conventional radar systems, modern radar
systems leverage advancements in both hardware and software
 13

technologies [86]. Modern radar systems utilize cutting-edge

digital signal processing, advanced RF front-ends and antenna
technology, and machine learning. Modern radar systems can
provide detection at long ranges, maintain a low probability
of intercept, adaptively select transmission parameters based
on the scenario, and process sparse and weak signals. More-
over, modern radar systems exhibit superior clutter rejection
North
capabilities, high range and angular resolution, enabling the
detection and tracking of multiple targets simultaneously,
enhanced classification capabilities, a low false alarm rate, and
resistance to electronic countermeasures.
The majority of modern radar systems use electronically
steered phased arrays. Passive electronically scanned ar-
ray (PESA) and AESA are two main types of electronically
steered phased-array-based radar systems shown in Fig. 9.
AESA is widely used nowadays to perform search and track
tasks simultaneously [87], [88]. Multiple AESA beams are
used to perform different tasks simultaneously, e.g., commu-
nications, passive listening, and imaging, in addition to search
and track tasks. The range equation for AESA radar [89]
is modified compared to the conventional radar equation
provided in (3). In particular, the contribution of individual
(a)
TX/RX modules is considered in the AESA range equation
Malicious UAVs in the swarm
given as Passive RF listening beam
 14
N 3 pπ 2 λ2 σTd

R= , (5)
(4π)3 kTs Dx (n′ )Lt La
MMPAR onboard UAV1
where N is the number of TX and RX modules, p is the
mean power of each TX/RX module, the antenna gain at the Communication link
Active RF emission by the
between UAVs
TX and RX is G = πN for the broadside direction with N target

TX/RX modules, Td is the dwell time, Dx (n′ ) is the effective

detectability factor (see [89]), Lt is the transmission line loss,
and La is the atmospheric loss.
In [90], a multifunction multibeam phased array radar (MM-
PAR) placed onboard a UAV was used to detect and track
multiple UAVs in a swarm simultaneously. The MMPAR
in [90] worked autonomously using reinforcement learning.
The multifunction beams used by MMPAR and malicious
UAV swarm detection and tracking scenarios using MMPAR
onboard UAVs are shown in Fig. 10(a) and Fig. 10(b), re-
spectively. The multiple radar beams are used for volume
search, cued search, tracking, communications, and passive
RF listening. The overall radar resources are shared among
different radar beams at different scanning instances. In addi-
tion to AESA radar, other modern radar systems for DCT-U
are provided in the following subsections.
1) Bistatic and Multistatic Radars: Bistatic and multistatic
radar systems can collect reflections from a UAV at different
locations and increase the detection probability for a small
RCS target. In [91], a multibeam and multiband software-
defined bistatic passive radar was used for the detection of
small RCS UAVs. In [92], a multistatic radar system was used
for the detection and tracking of a micro-UAV. Micro-Doppler
signatures were used to differentiate between UAV returns and
ground clutter. The measurements from multiple bistatic pairs
were fused together for accurate tracking of the UAV.
2) Cognitive Radars: Cognitive radar systems can au-
tonomously detect and track UAVs by selecting optimum radar
MMPAR onboard UAV2
Volume and cued search,
and tracking beams
(b)
Fig. 10: MMPAR radar onboard UAV for DCT-U swarm (regenerated
from [90]); (a) MMPAR onboard a UAV using different types of beams
simultaneously, (b) a scenario where two MMPAR onboard two UAVs detect
and track multiple UAVs simultaneously using volume and cued search,
and tracking beams. Also, the passive RF listening beam is used for the
detection of active RF transmissions from a malicious UAV in the swarm.
The communication beams between the two UAVs provide a continuous
communication link.
parameters based on the scenario [93]. In [94], a cognitive
radar system for the detection and classification of micro-
UAVs was proposed. A binarized deep belief network and
micro-Doppler signatures were used for the detection and clas-
sification of UAVs. Similar to cognitive radar systems, adaptive
radar systems can also be used for the detection and tracking
of UAVs. In [95], a phased array C-band radar operating at
multiple channels was used. The adaptive architecture helped
to resolve a single UAV from multiple UAVs in the range-
Doppler and angular domains while optimally utilizing the
resources.

3) Software-defined Radio-based Radars: Software-defined
radios (SDRs) offer many advantages, e.g., flexibility during
run-time changes, system upgrades without significant hard-
ware changes, and cost-effective solutions. SDRs can be used
to implement different types of radar systems for the detection
and tracking of UAVs [15]. In [96], an SDR-based FMCW
radar was used for the detection and localization of UAVs. The
detection and localization of UAVs were carried out using off-
the-shelf commonly available SDRs. Similarly, in [15], low-
cost SDRs were used for the detection, tracking, jamming,
and spoofing of unauthorized UAVs. Real-time measurements
were carried out to prove the effectiveness of the proposed
radar system.
4) Interferometric Radars: Interferometric radars use the
phase shift of the received radar signals at two different points
to determine the direction of arrival. In [97], an interferometric
radar was used for the detection and tracking of UAVs.
The range and angular velocity information were obtained
through interferometric radar measurements. The UAV was
also tracked by predicting future positions using range and
angular velocity measurements. In [102], a phase interfero-
metric Doppler radar was used for the detection and tracking
of UAVs. The measurements were obtained using a dual-
channel Doppler radar. Range, azimuth position, and Doppler
processing were carried out. The joint range-Doppler-azimuth
processing was used for the detection and tracking of micro-
UAVs.
5) MIMO Radars: Multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO)
radars operate similarly to multistatic radars. However, instead
of spatially distributed nodes as in multistatic radars, the
antenna elements are placed closely. MIMO radars provide
high spatial and Doppler resolution and dynamic range. In
[103], [104], MIMO radars were used for the detection and
tracking of UAVs. In [105], small UAV detection was carried
out using a MIMO radar and sparse array optimization and
calibration method. In [106], an S-band MIMO radar was used
for the detection of small UAVs. A target-based calibration of
the MIMO radar array was carried out to improve SNR. The
MIMO radar was able to detect and track Phamtom 4 UAV at
a distance of 5 km.
6) Passive Radars: Passive radar systems can also be used
for the detection and tracking of UAVs. A major advantage
of passive radar systems is that a dedicated emitter is not
required. The target illuminator can be any RF source. The
illuminator sources for passive radars can be GSM, LTE,
5G, WiFi, radio, or TV signal transmissions. Moreover, the
multiple passive listener nodes at different locations can help
to collect weak scattered reflections from a UAV. The majority
of communication-based radars discussed in Section V are
passive.
7) Compressed Sensing-based Radars: Compressed sens-
ing helps to achieve better range-Doppler resolution compared
to traditional radar systems in cluttered and sparse radar signal
reception scenarios [55], [56]. In [107], a UWB radar with a
compressed sensing-based adaptive filter was used for UAV
detection. Compressed sensing helped to suppress the clutter
and achieved a low false alarm rate. In [108], simulations
were carried out using passive radars for the detection of
14
UAVs using compressed sensing and the Monte Carlo method.
The effect of different factors on the detection of UAVs, e.g.,
antenna placement, and directivity was also covered.
8) Microwave Photonic Radars: Microwave photonic
radars use large bandwidth, provide resistance to microwave
interference at long ranges, and have the ability to simulta-
neously operate multiple coherent signals. In [109], [110],
latest trends and advances using photonic radar technology
were discussed. In [111], a photonic radar operating in the
X-band was used for the detection of small RCS UAVs. The
radar used photonic frequency for transmission. The received
signal was detected using a delay interferometer and photo-
detector. The photonic radar was able to detect small RCS
UAVs at a distance of 2.7 km. In [112], a photonic radar
using 11 GHz bandwidth and a simple signal generation and
processing setup was used for high-resolution identification of
moving propellers of a UAV.
9) Monopulse Radars: Monopulse radars can be used to
obtain the accurate position of a UAV as well as the detection
and tracking of a UAV. Such radars use additional coding of the
RF signal to obtain accurate directional information. In [95],
a multi-channel phased array radar operating in the C-band
was used for the detection of multiple UAVs. The UAVs were
closely spaced in the angular domain and were not resolvable
in the range-Doppler domain. A monopulse algorithm was
used to detect and find the azimuth position of multiple UAVs.
In [113], a coordinated radar scenario for the tracking of a
UAV was presented. The UAV was localized with the help of
monopulse trackers that coordinated through a backhaul. The
monopulse trackers achieved high localization performance at
a low feedback rate.
10) Polarimetric Radars: Polarimetric radars can be used to
classify UAVs based on polarimetric parameters. In [114], po-
larimetric parameters of S-band radar were used to distinguish
between small UAVs and birds. In the time-frequency domain,
the analysis of polarimetric parameters was carried out to
differentiate different scatterers based on micro-motion that
is resolved in time and velocity. The orientation of scatterers
and polarimetric signature helped in the target classification.
In [115], polarimetric analysis of UAVs was carried out from
different aspect angles, using micro-Doppler signature that
helps in the identification of UAV micromotions.
11) Airborne Radars: Airborne radar systems can be used
for DCT-U. Airborne radar systems have the advantage of
longer detection ranges, better tracking with the help of
maneuvering, and reduced clutter compared to ground-based
radar systems. In [90], MMPAR radar was used for the
detection, tracking, and classification of multiple malicious
UAVs in a swarm. The multiple radar beams were controlled
autonomously through reinforcement learning. Reinforcement
learning helped to overcome radar anomalies. In [116], active
and passive radars onboard UAVs in a swarm were used for the
detection of stealth aerial vehicles. The swarm of UAVs used
a combination of active and passive radars that helped in the
detection of stealth aerial vehicles. An airborne aerial dragnet
system by DARPA is used for the detection and tracking of
UAVs [117]. The aerial dragnet system used either tethered
UAVs or long-endurance platforms as airborne surveillance

T RACKING OF UAV S BY RADAR SYSTEMS USING DIFFERENT TRACKING ALGORITHMS .
UAV type Radar/sensor type
Motoar Sky MS-670 FMCW Interferometric
radar
Micro-UAV Multistatic radar NetRAD
vehicle state, bi-static range
Multi-rotor UAV Networked radar systems
Multi-rotor UAVs A dynamic radar network
onboard UAVs
DJI Phantom 3, Parrot Velodyne VLP-16 lidar
Bebop 2, Parrot Disco, DJI
MAVIC Pro.
UAVs Mobile radar
F450 and phantom 3 FMCW radar, acoustic and
optical sensors
Miniature rotor UAV Ku-band radar
platforms in urban environments.
The different algorithms available in the literature for track-
ing UAVs using radar systems are provided in Table IX. In
Table IX, the type of UAV, radar type, tracking features, and
tracking algorithm from different literature references are sum-
marized. From Table IX, we observe that different derivations
of Kalman filters are frequently used to estimate the future
position of the target based on the current measurements [92],
[97]–[101]. The major advantage of the Kalman filter includes
short convergence time and accuracy in real-time tracking
scenarios. The tracking features used mainly by Kalman filters
for tracking are position and velocity. In some scenarios e.g.,
in [92], angle information was not available, however, using
different measurements from different bi-static radar pairs, the
Kalman filter was able to track the UAV. In [50], a Hough
transform and linearly distributed features of micro-Doppler
are used for the detection and tracking of a UAV.
The popular modern military radar systems for the detection,
tracking, and classification of aerial vehicles including UAVs
are provided in Table X. The radar systems in Table X use
different frequency bands for search, tracking, guidance, and
classification. It can be observed that the majority of modern
military radar systems have long-range and use phased array
radar systems. Also, the majority of such radar systems are
ground-based and mobile, and have 360◦ azimuth coverage.
Moreover, Table XI provides modern counter-UAV radar sys-
tems. These radar systems are specifically designed to counter
different types of UAVs. The name of the radar system,
installation platform, and manufacturer information are also
provided in Table XI. The majority of the counter-UAV radar
systems are ground-based and provide small to medium-range
detection of UAVs.
C. Classification of UAVs Using Modern Radar Systems
There are many methods available in the literature for the
classification of UAVs using modern radar systems [153],
[154]. The main idea is to compare multiple features of the
UAVs obtained from measurements with the database of stored
features of different types of UAVs. Some of the important
15
TABLE IX
Tracking features Tracking algorithm Ref.
Radial velocity Kalman filter [97]
Micro-Doppler, 2D aerial Extended Kalman filter [92]
Detections from multiple Recursive random sample consensus [98]
radars algorithm, tuned Kalman filter
State space model Local Bayesian estimator, extended [99]
Kalman filter
Speed, overall motion, Kalman filter [100]
laser scanned data
3D position coordinates Kalman filter variants with east-north-up [101]
and velocity of the UAV improvements
Data from three sensors Kalman filter, single source detection [49]
algorithm, multiple drone detection
algorithm, MUSIC algorithm
Micro-Doppler features Hough transform [50]
classification features are size, shape, velocity, maneuverabil-
ity, and propeller motion patterns at different altitudes of
a UAV flight. The features are analyzed in both time and
frequency domains. In order to accurately classify a UAV, the
following conditions should be met: 1) the scattered signal
should be independent of the operating frequency, aspect
angle, and polarization; 2) the noise, clutter, and interference
from different sources should be minimum; and 3) there should
be sufficient features to classify a UAV. Furthermore, the
classification accuracy using a radar system depends on the
degree of range and angular resolution, and clutter rejection
capability.
Major challenges for the classification of UAVs using radar
systems include determining the type and intent of the UAV,
discriminating micro-UAVs from flying birds, identifying the
number and type of UAVs flying in a swarm, complexity due
to a large amount of training and real-time data, and optimum
feature extraction. The popular methods for the classification
of UAVs using radar systems in the recent literature are based
on RCS and micro-Doppler signatures of the UAVs. The RCS
is either taken as number values plotted across azimuth angles
or as images. The micro-Doppler signatures obtained from
spectrogram and cepstrogram plots are commonly used to clas-
sify small UAVs [162]. The classification methods for UAVs
using radar systems can be broadly divided into AI and non-
AI-based classification methods. The AI-based classification
methods are dominantly used in the recent literature compared
to non-AI-based classification methods.
AI algorithms learn the given features of a UAV using
training data and use different algorithms for UAV classifica-
tion [163], [164]. Popular AI algorithms for the classification
of UAVs using radar systems include neural networks. In
[165], a radar automatic target recognition (RATR) algorithm
that used CNN and a high range resolution profile (HRRP)
algorithm were presented. The proposed method using RATR
and HRRP was shown to work effectively even when the
training data was sparse. In [166], CNN was used for the clas-
sification of UAVs and birds. The radar signatures and CNN
were used for distinguishing of UAVs from birds in [166].
Other literature using different neural network algorithms and
 16

TABLE X
D IFFERENT TYPES OF POPULAR MILITARY RADAR SYSTEMS FOR THE DETECTION , TRACKING , GUIDANCE , AND CLASSIFICATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES
OF AERIAL VEHICLES INCLUDING UAV S .

Name Type Installation Purpose Possible aerial Frequency Coverage Range Antenna
platform vehicles (Az., El.)
AN/SPY6 Search Ground/shipboard Early warning Aerial vehicles S-band 360◦ Not AESA
[118] specified
AN/TPQ-53 3D search & Ground Early warning Aerial vehicles 1215- 360◦ ,90◦ 1000 km AESA
[119] track (immobile) 1400 MHz
AN/TPY-2 Surveillance, Ground (mobile) Long range, very Aerial projectiles X-band ±60◦ ,90◦ 4700 km Digital
[120] track, classify high altitude antenna
aerial vehicles array
AN/APY-12 Airborne Airborne Imaging Ground, aerial X-band Ground Not SAR
[121] surveillance vehicles imaging specified
AN/MPQ-53 Control radar Ground (mobile) Surveillance, IFF, Aerial projectiles G/H- 360◦ ,65◦ 100 km PESA
[122] tracking/guidance, bands
ECM
AN/SPG-62 Guidance Ground/shipboard Aerial vehicle Aerial vehicles I/J-Bands Not 305 km CW
[123] illumination specified
91N6 [124] 3D Ground (mobile) Early warning Aerial vehicles 2.9- 360◦ ,90◦ 600 km Phased
surveillance & 3.3 GHz array
track antenna
TPY-4 [119] Search, track Ground (mobile) Close range Rockets/artillery S-band 360◦ ,90◦ 60 km AESA
EL/M2084 Guidance Ground (mobile) Long range Projectiles S-band 360◦ ,80◦ 470 km 3D
[125] interception AESA
IBIS 150 [126] Tracking and Ground (mobile) Tracking aerial Aerial projectiles S-band Not 130 km PESA
guidance vehicles specified

TABLE XI
P OPULAR COUNTER -UAV RADAR SYSTEMS [127], [128].
Product name Manufacturer Platform Ref.
NM1-8A drone radar system Accipter, Canada Ground-based [129]
Spartiath ALX Systems, Belgium UAV/Ground-based [130]
Gamekeeper 16U Aveillant, United Kingdom Ground-based [131]
Harrier Drone Surveillance Radar DeTect, Inc, United States/United Kingdom Ground-based [132]
RadarOne DroneShield, Australia Ground-based [133]
RadarZero DroneShield, Australia Ground-based [134]
SABRE DRS/Moog, United States Ground-based [135]
GroundAware Dynetics, United States Ground-based [136]
Red Sky 2 Drone Defender System IMI Systems, Israel Ground-based [137]
SharpEye Kelvin Hughes, United Kingdom Ground-based [138]
SR-9000S Meritis, Switzerland Ground-based [139]
Drone Detection Radar Miltronix, United Kingdom Ground-based [140]
EAGLE MyDefence Communication ApS, Denmark Ground-based [141]
1L121-E NNIIRT, Russia Ground-based [142]
3D Air Surveillance UAV Detection Radar OIS-AT, India Ground-based [143]
OBSIDIAN QinetiQ, United Kingdom Ground-based [144]
Multi-Mission Hemispheric Radars RADA Electronic Industries, Israel Ground-based [145]
Elvira Robin Radar Systems, Netherlands Ground-based [146]
Drone Sentinel Advanced Radar Technologies, Spain Ground-based [147]
RR Drone/radar detection system Aaronia, Germany Ground-based [148]
Fortem TrueVIEW radar Fortem Technologies Ground-based and airborne [149]
EchoFlight Echodyne corp. Airborne [150]
LSTAR (V)2 SRC Inc. Ground-based [151]
60 GHz FMCW MIMO Custom built Ground-based [152]

radar data for the classification of UAV are available in [58],
[59], [155], [167], [168].
In [169] a boosting classifier was used on the radar mea-
surements of birds and small UAVs. The micro-Doppler radar
measurements in the form of time-velocity diagrams and a
boosting classifier were used to distinguish different types of
UAVs and birds. The boosting classifier was shown to per-
form better compared to the support vector machine (SVM).
In [170], different AI classification algorithms including grad-
ing boosting method (GBM) were applied to the features
obtained from range fast Fourier transform (FFT) of mmWave
FMCW radar measurements. A classification accuracy of
95.6 % was achieved using GBM classifier. In [171], the Naive
Bayes classifier and other AI algorithms were used for the
classification of UAVs based on RCS measurements. The clas-
sification results of different classifiers were also compared.
Similarly, SVM and logistic regression [82], and hybrid CNN-
memetic algorithm [172] were used for the classification of
UAVs using radar data.
Non-AI algorithms are also used for the classification of
UAVs using radar data. In [62] a statistical-based analysis
of the RCS of different types of UAVs was carried out for
classification. The RCS measurements of different UAVs were
carried out in an anechoic chamber at 15 GHz and 25 GHz.
 17

C LASSIFICATION OF UAV S BY RADAR SYSTEMS USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHMS .
UAV type
Metafly, MavicAir2, Parrot
Disco
See Table 7.1 in [156]
Mobile objects in air
Planes, quadrocopter,
helicopters, stationary rotors,
and birds
Multi-rotor UAVs and birds
Rotary UAVs
DJI Matrice 600 Pro, DJI
Matrice 100, Trimble zx5, DJI
Mavic Pro 1, DJI Inspire 1 Pro,
and DJI Phantom 4 Pro
Multi-rotor UAVs
Fixed wing and multi-rotor
UAVs
TABLE XII
Radar/sensor type Classification features Classification algorithm Ref.
FMCW radar Micro-Doppler signatures from Deep learning [155]
radar spectrogram dataset
CW radar, automotive Diameter of the rotor Support vector machine, Naive Bayes [156]
radar
Mobile autonomous Image of the environment Neural network algorithm [157]
radar stations
X-band CW radar Features based on micro-Doppler Support vector machine, Naive Bayes [158]
signatures of aerial vehicles
S-band BirdRad Polarimetric parameters provided Nearest neighbor classifier [114]
system in Table I of [114]
FMCW radar and Spectral power bins Neural network algorithms [159]
acoustic sensor array
Surveillance radar RCS of UAVs 15 different classifiers provided in [30]
operating at 15 GHz Table IV of [30]
and 25 GHz
X-band CW radar Features based on micro-Doppler Spectrographic pattern analysis of [160]
signatures of the UAVs UAVs
FMCW surveillance Features based on micro-Doppler Total error rate minimization based [161]
radar signatures classification

The best statistical model fitting on the measurement data was
carried out. The class conditional probability density func-
tions (PDFs) based on the best match for a given UAV form
the basis of classification. In [173] a symmetrical feature based
on the motion of the UAV propellers during the approaching
and receding phases was used to distinguish UAVs from
birds. The symmetry feature was extracted from the micro-
Doppler signatures of the radar returns. A peak extraction
method based on the micro-Doppler returns provided the
symmetry feature. In [158], a CW radar operating at 9.5 GHz
was used to extract classification features from the micro-
Doppler signature of a UAV. The eigenpairs obtained from
the correlation matrix of the micro-Doppler signatures were
used as features for classification. Different types of UAVs
and birds were classified using this approach.
Another non-AI-based classification method using FMCW
radar was provided in [161], where radar returns from different
UAVs and non-UAV objects were collected. A classification
method based on the pattern of micro-Doppler returns was
developed. The proposed method showed higher classification
accuracy compared to other classification methods. In [174],
a two-step UAV classification method was used. In the first
step, a cadence velocity diagram was used to obtain the micro-
Doppler features and in the second step, the data from the cur-
rent and previous steps were jointly arranged for classification.
The proposed method was tested at distributed locations for
the classification of UAVs. In [50], Hough Transform was used
for the detection and classification of a multi-rotor UAV from
micro-Doppler returns.
Different algorithms used for the classification of UAVs
using radar systems are provided in Table XII. It can be
observed that the majority of the current research relies on
AI algorithms for the classification of UAVs. In Table XII,
deep learning, SVM, Naive Bayes, neural network, nearest
neighbor, and discriminant analysis were used for UAV clas-
sification and provided in [114], [155]–[159], [175]. Non-AI
classification methods are also provided in Table XII. In [30],
non-AI classification based on statistical learning was used in
addition to machine and deep learning. It was observed that
even though statistical learning provided good classification
results, the computational time was large compared to machine
and deep learning. Furthermore, non-AI UAV classification
methods in Table XII used micro-Doppler signatures and spec-
trographic pattern analysis and total error rate minimization for
classification [160], [161].
In some studies, both AI and non-AI classification methods
are used for comparison. For example, in [30], different classi-
fication algorithms from statistical learning, machine learning,
and deep learning were used and a comparative analysis of
UAV classification techniques based on the RCS was provided.
The RCS of six different types of UAVs was measured at
15 GHz and 25 GHz in an anechoic chamber. For example,
assuming equal apriori probabilities for each of the UAV type
or class, the statistical rule for UAV classification is given in
[30] as
C
b = arg max ln P (C = j|σ),
C=1,2,··· ,M
(6)
= arg max ln P (σ|C = j),
C=1,2,··· ,M
where P (C = j|σ) is the posterior probability for a j th class,
and P (σ|C = j) is the conditional class density, and there are
M different UAV classes.
V. DCT-U USING C OMMUNICATION S YSTEMS
In this section, we highlight the similarities between radar
and communication systems, and the advantages of commu-
nication systems for DCT-U. Furthermore, JC&S in active
mode and the use of communication systems in passive mode
for DCT-U are provided. The limitations of communication
systems for the DCT-U are also discussed.

A. Similarities and Differences of Communication and Radar
Systems
There are many similarities between communication and
radar systems. Therefore, communication systems can be used
for DCT-U. The similarities and differences between the
communication systems and radar systems are summarized as
follows:
• Both communication systems and radar systems use radio
waves at different frequencies.
• The radio wave propagation through free space takes
place similarly for communication systems and radar
systems.
• Both radar systems and communication systems use a
signal generation stage and an RF stage. The signal
generation stage typically involves waveform generation,
shaping, coding and modulation, and encryption. The
RF stage includes amplification and beam steering (by
changing the signal phase across antenna elements) from
the antenna array.
• The RX of a communication system and a radar system
generally includes a low noise amplifier, matched filter,
decoder, decrypter, demodulator, and detector.
• Both communication systems and radar systems are time-
critical systems.
• Majority of communication systems and radar systems
use encryption and authentication.
• The major difference between the communication sys-
tems and the radar systems is the transmit power. The
pulse-based radar systems transmit radio waves at much
higher power compared to common RF communications.
The high transmit power is obtained by using amplifiers
and high-gain antennas.
• Complex frequency hopping patterns are frequently used
in radar systems compared to communication systems to
avoid jamming.
• The selection of frequencies for the communication sys-
tems takes into account the transmission (or penetration
losses) through the building materials. However, for radar
systems, the transmission through materials is not mainly
considered during frequency selection and the main focus
is on the reflection properties.
• Complex encoding and signal processing techniques are
used for communication systems. The techniques help to
attain a high data rate and serve multiple users simul-
taneously. On the other hand, for radar systems, simple
pulse signals are commonly used because the main focus
is reliability.
• The radar systems operate mainly in the line-of-
sight (LOS), whereas, the communication systems can
operate in the LOS and non-LOS (NLOS).
• The RX sensitivity is higher for radar systems compared
to common communication systems.
• The TX and RX are generally co-located in a radar
system (monostatic radar), whereas TX and RX are apart
in the communication systems.
18
B. Advantages of Communication Systems for DCT-U
The major advantages of communications systems for DCT-
U can be listed as follows:
• Communication systems offer a thorough coverage in the
majority of urban areas compared to radar systems.
• Communication systems can operate and subsequently
detect and track UAVs in NLOS conditions. On the other
hand, the majority of radar systems require a LOS path
with the UAV for precise detection and tracking.
• Multiple types of communication systems are available in
an urban area, e.g., FM and amplitude modulation radio
broadcasts, television broadcasts, and mobile and satellite
communications. Each communication system uses a par-
ticular frequency band and communication methodology.
Moreover, different types of communication systems offer
long, medium, and short-range connectivity. Overall, the
diverse types of communication systems available in an
urban area can help DCT-U in different scenarios.
• The presence of multiple communication nodes along the
path of a non-cooperative UAV can help to update the
localization estimates.
• The height of the antenna(s) on the communication tow-
ers is generally selected to maximize coverage in a given
area. The height of the majority of the communication
tower antennas is such that small UAVs flying at typical
heights (e.g., lower than 400 feet in the United States
under FAA Part 107 Rules) can be detected and tracked
through a LOS path.
• Communication systems can be used to obtain the
Doppler signature of the UAV, which can help to classify
a UAV.
• The communications using satellites offer ubiquitous and
LOS coverage on the ground mainly due to the height
of the satellites above the ground. The ubiquitous LOS
coverage by satellites can help in the detection and
tracking of UAVs.
• Modern communication systems, e.g., 5G and beyond use
phased arrays and can electronically steer antenna beams
similar to phased array radar systems.
• Different communication systems update the channel
state information (CSI) at regular intervals of time, e.g.,
massive MIMO systems. These periodic CSI updates can
help in UAV detection.
• Both active and passive DCT-U can be achieved using
communication systems.
• Popular communication waveforms, e.g., orthogonal
frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) can be used for
JC&S. Moreover, both uplink and downlink channels can
be used for sensing in a JC&S system using a mobile
network.
• A significant research literature and standardization de-
tails are available for communication systems in the
public domain that can help research for UAV-based
detection, tracking, and classification.

C. DCT-U Using JC&S
JC&S also known as joint communication and radar systems
has gained significant importance in the recent decade [176].
The term sensing generally includes DCT. The majority of
JC&S literature uses active radar and mobile communication
networks. The major goal of JC&S is to integrate communica-
tions and sensing of the environment through a single device
and preferably using a single transmitted signal. The JC&S
can offer improved spectral efficiency, and reduce cost, size,
and power consumption. Advanced hardware and software
including complex signal processing techniques are required
to make the integration of the two domains efficient. JC&S
can also be used for DCT-U. There are studies available in
the literature that provide JC&S techniques for DCT-U [177],
[178].
In [16], a survey on JC&S in mobile networks was provided.
In the survey, studies on coexisting radar and communication
systems and their limitation were discussed. Mainly three types
of JC&S systems were covered namely, radar centric and com-
munication centric designs, and joint design and optimization.
Furthermore, modifications were discussed to integrate sensing
operations into the current communication-only architecture.
UAV detection was provided as an application of the JC&S
systems. In [179], JC&S using MIMO systems was discussed.
Three novel JC&S models using MIMO and cloud random
access networks, UAVs, and reconfigurable intelligent surfaces
were discussed. The survey provided different Internet of
things (IoT) scenarios for JC&S. Different waveform designs
for MIMO-based JC&S were also provided. Other survey
studies on JC&S are available in [180]–[183]. We focus on
active JC&S systems in this survey.
1) Active JC&S Using Different Signals for Communica-
tions and Sensing: In this type of JC&S, the communication
and sensing signals are separated in frequency, time, code,
and polarization. The communication and sensing hardware
is often partially shared. In [184] a JC&S system comprising
of MIMO radar and a configuration of sparse antenna array
was used. Independent transmit waveforms were associated
with antennas resulting in different pulse repetition periods.
Moreover, by antenna selection and the ordering of antenna-
waveform pairs a high communication data rate was achieved.
The sensed target was an aerial vehicle. In [185], an intelligent
transportation system operating at mmWave was used for
simultaneous communication and radar functions. Different
waveforms were used for communications and radar functions
controlled by a voltage-controlled oscillator switch.
In [186] a software-defined automotive system providing
JC&S was provided. In the proposed approach, FMCW was
used to obtain the range of the target, whereas pseudoran-
dom (PN) code pulse was used for inter-vehicle communica-
tion. The switching between FMCW and PN was controlled
through software. In [90], a phased array radar with six
simultaneous beams was used for DCT-U. Two beams were
used for communications and the other four beams were used
for radar operation. The radar and communication beams used
independent waveforms. The system resources were cogni-
tively scheduled among the beams dependent on the scenario
19
through reinforcement learning.
2) Active JC&S Using Same Signals for Communications
and Sensing: A major goal of JC&S is to design a common
signal that optimizes communications and sensing. There
are many research efforts where a common signal is used
and optimized for communications and sensing. In [188],
multiple phased array beams originating from a MIMO base
station (BS) were steered in different directions to serve
mobile users on the ground and detect UAVs in space. OFDM
signals with a standard cyclic prefix were used for both
communications and sensing. The variations in the channel
impulse response (CIR) were used to detect the presence of
a target. The detection of a target was considered a binary
hypothesis set. The example target sensed was a UAV. In
[189], UAV-based machine type communications are consid-
ered for JC&S. Code-division OFDM JC&S system was used
through unified spectrum and transceivers. A novel code-
division OFDM signal was used for both communications and
sensing. The successive interference cancellations were used to
provide code-division gain. The code division gain was used
to reduce the multiple access interference. In [190], JC&S
using orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) waveform was
used for industrial IoT including ground vehicles and UAVs.
The problem of lack of sensing by OFTS was overcome
using different pre-processing methods to remove the effect of
communication symbols in the time and frequency domains.
3) Active Distributed JC&S Systems: In a distributed JC&S
system the communication and sensing subsystems may not
be co-located. In a distributed JC&S system the signals are
different but the resources are shared. Moreover, the commu-
nication and sensing subsystems in a distributed JC&S can be
cooperative or non-cooperative. The cooperative architecture
requires information sharing and is complex compared to the
non-cooperative architecture. Fig. 11(a) shows a cooperative
resource-sharing example for JC&S where the communication
and sensing subsystems are co-located. In [191] a joint MIMO
matrix completion radar and communication system was pro-
posed that operated concurrently by sharing the spectrum.
The sharing of spectrum helped to reduce the interference be-
tween the two systems. Both cooperative and non-cooperative
approaches were used. The target considered for JC&S was
an aerial vehicle. In [192], coexistence and spectrum sharing
between a MIMO radar and a downlink multiuser-MIMO
communication system was provided. The transmit beamform-
ing of the MIMO downlink communications was designed
to optimize the communications and probability of detection
of MIMO radar. The beamformer proposed was robust to
imperfect channel state estimates.
4) Active JC&S Using Cognitive Radios: In [193], a rotat-
ing radar was used as a primary device and a communication
system as a secondary device that cognitively accessed the
available spectrum. The secondary communication device was
allowed to transmit as long as the interference levels were
bounded within the range allowed by the primary radar de-
vice. The secondary communication device was orthogonal
frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) based operating
in non-contiguous cells that used a given dedicated spectrum
and a shared spectrum with the radar. Similarly, in [194]

TABLE XIII
C OMPARISON OF JC&S SYSTEMS BASED ON RESOURCES AND WAVEFORM .
System Resources Waveform
JC&S with Resources are Different types of
different transmit generally shared waveform
signals
JC&S with same Resources can be Same waveform
transmit signals shared or
dedicated
Distributed Resources are Different waveform
JC&S shared optimized for sensing
and communications,
respectively
Cognitive radio Resource shared Different waveform
cognitively
the effect of opportunistic access to the radar spectrum by a
communication link was investigated. The spatial and temporal
opportunities were explored for the co-existence of radar and
communication system keeping the interference level low to
the primary radar device while maintaining the communica-
tion throughput. Table XIII provides a comparison of JC&S
systems based on waveform and resources.
5) Active Radar Centric JC&S Design: In a radar-centric
JC&S design, the communications are realized in the primary
radar system. The radar systems have generally long ranges
and communication systems can take advantage of the long-
range, however, the throughput is limited due to the radar-
specific waveform. In a radar-centric system, multiple access
channels for JC&S were considered in [195]. Spectrum-time-
space convergence was considered for the co-existence of radar
and communication systems. In [196] a MIMO radar with
quasi-orthogonal multi-carrier linear frequency modulation
continuous phase modulation waveform was used for sensing
and multi-user communications. In [197] a radar was imple-
mented using SDR that is able to support communications.
The system used wideband communications. The wideband
communications supported radar operation and allowed com-
munication of range-Doppler maps with the BS. There are
other related studies also [198]–[200] where different types of
waveform were used for radar that support communications.
6) Active Communication Centric JC&S Design: In a
communication-centric design, sensing capability is introduced
to a primary communication system. Communication systems
that support sensing can be further categorized into small-scale
point-to-point communication systems, e.g., vehicular commu-
nications or large-scale mobile networks. In [201] radar-based
sensing was implemented for the mmWave 802.11ad vehicular
communication system. A full duplex radar operation was con-
sidered due to limited self-interference and sufficient isolation.
In [202] velocity and range estimation of multiple scatterers
in an OFDM vehicular communication system was carried out
by different algorithms. JC&S in 5G mobile networks using
compressed sensing was introduced in [203]. The compressed
sensing helped in the target detection using 5G communication
signals.
20
Pros Cons Ref.
1) The design of waveform for 1) Complex and expensive hardware, [90],
communication and sensing is and 2) low spectral efficiency [184]–
approximately independent, and [187]
2) small mutual interference
1) Shared TX and RX, and 2) Requires clock synchronization
high spectral efficiency between TX and RX to avoid sensing [177],
ambiguity [188]–
[190]
1) Improved spectral efficiency, 1) Coordination among the sensing
and 2) less complex TX and and communication nodes require [191],
RX compared to different synchronization that is challenging if [192]
waveform JC&S system far apart, and 2) interference between
communication and sensing nodes
Efficient spectral usage 1) Interference can affect the primary
users, and 2) performance of [193],
secondary users depends on the [194]
cognitive algorithm and surroundings
The sensing in a communication-centric mobile network
can take place at the downlink or uplink. Fig. 11(b) shows
a downlink JC&S scenario using a mobile network. The
downlink JC&S can be active or passive, whereas, the uplink
JC&S is generally passive. A passive sensing scenario using a
mobile network is shown in Fig. 11(c). In an active downlink
JC&S, the TX and RX are generally co-located. As the TX and
RX are co-located, the synchronization between the TX and
RX can be easily achieved. Also, the active downlink JC&S
requires full-duplex capability. In [204], the JC&S system
using MIMO was used. A single TX communicated with the
downlink mobile user and simultaneously detected targets in
the surroundings. Different design criteria were introduced to
mitigate the multiuser interference including omnidirectional
and directional antennas, and optimized waveforms. In [205],
both uplink and downlink sensing using a mobile network was
demonstrated and the same signal was used for communica-
tions and sensing.
7) Active Non-centric JS&S Design: There is a third cate-
gory where the design of JC&S is not centric around existing
radar or communication systems. These offer better freedom
and a balanced approach in the design of waveforms, resource
distributions, and corresponding algorithms for communica-
tions and sensing. In [182], waveform designs and signal
processing aspects for JC&S at mmWave were covered without
a centric design. Both UAV and ground vehicle targets were
considered for JC&S. In [206], ultra-massive JC&S was pro-
vided at the terahertz band. In the proposed JC&S system both
model-based and model-free hybrid beamforming was used.
The BS consisted of ultra-massive MIMO and multiple beams
were generated toward the multi-antenna mobile users and
radar targets. Another non-centric JC&S system was proposed
in [207]. The proposed system used analog antenna arrays
and two sub-beams were superimposed to generate an optimal
combined beam. The optimal beam was used for JC&S.
D. DCT-U Using Communication Systems in Passive Mode
Communication signals reflected from UAVs can be pas-
sively monitored for DCT-U. Commonly used communication
systems for DCT-U are GSM, LTE, 5G, WiFi, digital audio

Frequency
C S
C S
Sensing
Communications C S
(a)
Data transfer downlink
Downlink active sensing
(b)
Data transfer
(c)
Fig. 11: (a) A JC&S system example in which time-frequency resources are
equally distributed between the communication and sensing operations (C
represents communications and S represents sensing). The signals for com-
munications and sensing operation can be the same or different; (b) a JC&S
system example with simultaneous downlink communications and active
sensing. The signals for communications and sensing are preferred to be
the same in this scenario; (c) passive sensing of a target scenario using a
communication system.
and video broadcasting, and satellites. Table XIV lists some
examples where different communication systems are used for
DCT-U in passive mode with further details as follows.
1) GSM: Major advantages of using a GSM network for
the detection and tracking of UAVs include the collection of
detection measurements from different aspect angles using
BSs, and combining measurements from different BSs to
overcome weak measurements from a single base station.
In [214], a GSM-based radar in the passive mode was used
to collect weak reflections from a UAV. Experiments were
conducted to detect and track a quadcopter using passive
GSM-based radar achieving a high detection rate. A track-
before-detect method was used to detect and track small UAVs
using GSM signals. A GSM-based detection system for small
UAVs operating in the passive mode was introduced in [215].
Passive bistatic radar measurements were carried out using
21
GSM signals in [91] for the detection of small RCS UAVs.
Experiments were carried out in [216] using multiple mobile
C S
C S telecommunication illuminators including GSM in the passive
C S mode for the detection of aerial targets.
Time
2) LTE: Major benefits of LTE include variable bandwidth
available from 1.4 MHz to 20 MHz and high range and
velocity resolution compared to GSM. Also, the ambiguity
function in LTE results in lower sidelobes, and the global
coverage allows coordinated passive sensing. Similar to GSM,
an LTE network can be used for the detection and tracking
of UAVs in the passive mode. A USRP-based setup in [217]
used LTE signals from multiple TXs and a single RX was
used for the detection of UAV in the passive mode. In [218], a
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image of the UAV was obtained
using OFDM signals of an LTE system. A passive LTE-based
radar system was used in [208] for the detection of UAVs.
Experiments were conducted to demonstrate the capability of
the passive LTE radar to detect low-flying UAVs. In [219],
an LTE-based multistatic radar was used for the detection of
UAVs. A new target detection-based feature was added to the
existing downlink LTE signal.
3) 5G and Beyond: To fulfill high data rate requirements,
mmWave, and higher frequency bands are envisioned for 5G
and beyond communications. Salient features of 5G communi-
cations include dense network coverage through a large num-
ber of access points and connected devices, highly directional
antenna beams, and beam steering capabilities. In [220], a
passive 5G radar was used for the detection of UAVs. The
system took advantage of variable resource allocation in a
5G system for the detection of low RCS UAVs. In [221], a
fully cooperative 5G cellular system was used as a source of
illumination for a passive radar for target detection. A moving
target was illuminated by the 5G BS in a bistatic geometry. In
[209], Rényi entropy was used for the selection of time frames
in a downlink channel of 5G system. The resource allocation
was found to have a significant effect on the detection and
range resolution of a target.
4) WiFi: The WiFi signals reflected from targets in the
surroundings can be captured passively and subsequently used
for detection. In [210], WiFi transmissions were used for
the detection and 3D localization of UAVs and small planes
using a passive radar. A passive bistatic radar based on WiFi
transmissions is also provided in [222], [223]. In [223], a
WiFi-based passive bistatic radar using least square adaptive
filtering and moving target indicator (MTI) was used. The
proposed approach provided a cost-effective solution that can
be implemented using SDR for the detection of low-flying
aerial vehicles.
5) Digital Audio Broadcast: Digital Audio Broadcast
(DAB) has been a popular source of communication to large
populations. DAB can also be used for the detection of UAVs
in the passive mode. A passive radar in the VHF band and
using DAB transmissions were used for the detection of a
fixed-wing UAV in [224]. The detection range of the fixed-
wing UAV reported was 1.2 km. In [225] FM (using analog
signals) radio-based passive radar sensor was used. The sensor
can be used for air surveillance. Similarly, passive multi-static
aerial surveillance using DAB signals was carried out in [226].
 22

TABLE XIV
E XAMPLE PASSIVE RADAR SYSTEMS THAT PASSIVELY CAPTURE COMMUNICATION SIGNALS REFLECTED FROM UAV S FOR DCT-U.
Communication Specifications Bistatic or Ref.
System multistatic
radar
GSM A passive radar with multibeam and multiband capability is used for the detection of low RCS UAVs using bistatic [91]
GSM signals. Field experiments were carried out in a remote area. Time-Doppler map is used for detection
of UAV
LTE A SDR-based LTE passive radar is used for the detection of a UAV in an urban environment. A frequency Bistatic [208]
division duplex downlink LTE signal is used as an illuminator of opportunity
5G A passive radar with Rényi entropy using 5G network is used for the detection of UAVs. The Rényi bistatic [209]
entropy helps to select time frames at the downlink channel in both frequency and time
WiFi A WiFi-based passive radar is used for the detection of UAVs. In addition to detection, 3D localization of Multistatic [210]
the UAV can be obtained using a quad-channel RX
DAB DAB signals are used as illuminators of opportunity for a passive multistatic radar for the detection of Multistatic [211]
low-flying UAVs
DVB-T A DVB-T-based passive radar is used for the detection and tracking of UAVs. The range-Doppler matrix is Bistatic [212]
used for the identification of UAVs
Satellite Passive FSR and DVB-S signals are used for UAV detection. The proposed system is similar to an air Bistatic [213]
traffic monitoring system

The Doppler and bi-static time difference of arrival measure-
ments were used and a multi-hypothesis tracking algorithm
was developed to help at different stages of tracking.
In [211], DAB-based passive multistatic radar was used
to detect stealth UAVs. Moreover, a passive multistatic radar
based on the FM radio signal transmissions in [227] was used
to detect aerial vehicles. The tracking was carried out using
three passive radars placed at different locations. In [228], a
passive coherent location (PCL) system using DAB, FM, and
cellular communication signals was used. The PCL was used
to detect UAVs.
6) Digital Video Broadcast Terrestrial: Similar to DAB,
digital video broadcast terrestrial (DVB-T) signals can be used
for the detection and tracking of UAVs. The potential of a
passive radar using DVB-T was shown in [212]. Experimental
data for the detection and identification of multi-rotor and
fixed-wing UAVs was provided. It was claimed that passive
radars can play an important role in the detection of different
types of UAVs at long ranges using DVB-T transmissions.
The potential uses of DVB passive radar for the detection
and identification of different small UAVs were provided in
[212]. The detection and identification using DVB passive
radar helped to counter illegal UAV flights. The detection of
UAVs using DVB-T2 passive coherent radar was provided in
[229].
A passive radar using DVB-T illuminators of opportunity
was used for 4D (range, Doppler, azimuth, and elevation)
detection and tracking of small UAVs in [230]. The approach
used a uniform linear array and two separate antennas for the
estimation of range, Doppler, azimuth, and elevation angles
of the UAVs. A passive multistatic digital TV-based radar
for UAV detection was provided in [231]. Passive digital
TV-based radar was used for the detection and tracking of
UAVs in a highly cluttered scenario near airports in [231]. In
[232] it was observed that the strong reflections from large
RCS of commercial planes made software-based detection
and tracking of small RCS UAVs difficult. Long coherent
processing intervals and multi-stage CLEAN algorithms were,
therefore, used to filter strong reflections from commercial
planes.
7) Satellites: Satellite communications can be used for the
detection and tracking of UAVs near the ground. However,
the long-distance of the satellites from the ground, low data
rates, and small RCS of common UAVs make detection
and tracking challenging. In [213], a DVB satellite (DVB-
S) was used for the detection of UAVs. The micro-Doppler
signature from rotating blades was used for UAV identification.
To overcome the challenges of UAV detection by satellite
networks, forward scattering radar (FSR) configuration was
used in the passive mode. The passive DVB-S and FSR were
also used in [233] for the detection of multi-rotor UAVs and
performing micro-Doppler analysis of the copter UAVs. In
[234], DVB-S was used for the detection of multi-rotor UAVs
and micro-Doppler signature extraction. The micro-Doppler
signature helped in the UAV classification. A reference channel
and a surveillance channel were used. The reference channel
pointed to the satellite for reference signaling, whereas the
surveillance channel pointed to the UAV. The two channels
were used to calculate the cross-ambiguity function which
assisted in UAV detection.
E. Limitations of Communication Systems for DCT-U
There are many limitations of communication systems when
used for the DCT-U (in active or passive modes). Further
research efforts are required to address these limitations. The
limitations are summarized as follows:
• A common signal that optimizes both communications
and sensing in JC&S is desired. However, designing a
signal that optimizes communications and sensing simul-
taneously is challenging.
• In JC&S systems where different signals are employed for
communication and sensing, sharing the same resources
can lead to interference between the communication and
sensing signals.
• In a JC&S system that utilizes a common signal for both
communications and sensing, a necessity for full duplex
operation arises.
• Synchronization between the TX and the RX is a major
challenge for JC&S systems when TX and RX are not
co-located.

Capturing control and data signals
for DCT-U
RF sensor
Fig. 12: A scenario of passive capturing of RF SOO between UAV and GS
using RF sensor.
• The effectiveness of sensing using passive radar when the
target illuminator is a communication system depends on
the characteristics of the communication system.
• The accuracy of a passive radar based on the commu-
nication system is dependent on many factors includ-
ing communication signal type, interference levels, and
propagation environment. The accuracy is generally low
compared to active radar systems.
• The range and coverage of target detection in pas-
sive mode rely on the strength of the communica-
tion signals. Communication systems operating in high-
frequency bands, such as 5G, may exhibit limited range
for passive mode target detection.
• The communication system-based passive radar systems
are complex and often require multiple RX nodes and
significant training data for correct detection.
• The tracking of a UAV requires multiple communication
nodes that coordinate with each other. The coordination
for tracking UAVs requires additional resources and in-
frastructure.
• The classification of UAVs requires training data. The
training data obtained through a given communication
system may not be applicable directly to another type
of communication system.
VI. DCT-U USING PASSIVE MONITORING OF RF SOO
R ADIATED FROM UAV S
In this section, the passive monitoring of RF signals radiated
from UAVs for DCT-U is discussed. Note that this is different
from what is covered in Section V-D, since here we consider
signals explicitly transmitted by the UAVs. The limitations of
DCT using passive monitoring of SOO radiated from UAVs
are also provided.
A. RF Signals Radiated from UAV for DCT-U
The RF signals radiated from UAVs for remote control and
data transfer can be used for DCT-U. The RF signals are
captured either between two communicating UAVs or between
a UAV and a ground station (GS). A scenario of passive captur-
ing of RF SOO between the UAV and GS for DCT-U is shown
23
in Fig. 12. Different methods are available in the literature for
capturing RF signals radiated from UAVs and distinguishing
these RF signals from other communication signals for the
detection and tracking of UAVs. Furthermore, the classification
of UAVs is performed based on the features of the detected
RF signals. In [235], a passive radio surveillance system was
used to capture and analyze RF fingerprints of the radiated
signals between UAV and GS in the presence of WiFi and
Bluetooth interference. After the signal was confirmed to be
from a UAV, the UAV was classified using different machine
learning methods.
The effect of interference from WiFi and Bluetooth signals
on the detection and classification of UAVs through the RF
analysis of captured signals was provided in [236]. It was
shown that by using CNN and machine learning classification,
a high percentage of accuracy for the detection and classifica-
tion of different types of UAVs was achieved. There are also
similar studies where RF fingerprints of the radiated signal
between UAV and GS were captured and analyzed passively
to detect UAVs [155], [175], [240].
In [237], the detection and localization of UAVs relied on
the utilization of multidimensional features extracted from the
signals between the UAV and the GS. Features included the
frequency transform of the signal, power spectral entropy, and
wavelet energy entropy. Machine learning algorithms were
employed to detect UAVs based on these selected features.
[242] involved the creation of a database comprising RF
signals emitted by various UAVs in diverse flight scenarios,
including being on the ground and connected to the GS, flying,
hovering, and during video recording. Using the collected data
and deep neural networks, UAVs were detected and classified.
The detection and localization of a UAV was carried out by
passively monitoring the RF signals emitted from the UAV
in an open area using RF sensors in [238]. An envelope
detection algorithm and RF database of different UAVs were
compared with the measurement data for UAV detection. The
time difference of arrival was used to localize the UAV. There
are other studies available that detect UAVs based on RF
signals radiated from UAVs and use different machine learning
methods [243]–[245], [250]. In Table XV RF SOO radiated
from UAV/controller, number of UAVs/controllers used for
classification, AI/machine learning techniques used, hardware
used and unique aspects of DCT-U based on passively captur-
ing RF signals radiated from UAVs are summarized.
Observations from Table XV highlight that most RF SOO-
based passive UAV detections operate at a center frequency
of 2.4 GHz. Additionally, the hardware used in the majority
of studies listed in Table XV is simple and off-the-shelf.
While deep learning offers highly accurate UAV classification,
its accuracy might diminish in scenarios divergent from the
training data. Table XVI presents a comparative performance
analysis of various machine learning algorithms employed for
detecting and classifying different UAVs/controllers using RF
fingerprinting techniques in [235]. From Table XVI, it can
be observed that RandF offers the highest accuracy for the
classification of UAVs.
 24

TABLE XV
U NIQUE ASPECTS OF DCT-U THAT ARE BASED ON THE PASSIVE DETECTION OF RF SIGNALS EMITTED BY UAV S ARE SUMMARIZED .
Ref. RF SOO considered # of UAVs/ AI/ML Hardware for RF signal Unique aspects
controllers techniques used detection
2.4 GHz center 17 UAV kNN, discriminant High-frequency Detection and classification of UAVs was
[235] frequency, 5 M controllers analysis, SVM, oscilloscope, directional performed using RF energy detection
samples neural network, antenna between UAVs and ground controller in
RandF the presence of WiFi and Bluetooth
interferences and using machine learning
algorithms
2.4375 GHz center 7 UAVs kNN, logistic SDR and directional RF signals between UAV and ground
[236] frequency, regression, CNN antenna controller were collected in the presence of
60 MBits/s sampling WiFi and Bluetooth interferences and CNN
rate, 28 MHz algorithm was used for UAV classification
bandwidth
2.4 GHz center 2 UAVs SVM, random X310 USRP, UBX-160 Detection and tracking of UAVs was
[237] frequency, 20 Mbit/s forest, kNN, Naive daughter board, and carried out based on multidimensional
sampling rate Bayes, ensemble circular antenna array signal features and machine learning
learning algorithms
2.400 GHz−2.483 GHz 1 UAV − RF sensor and broadband Multiple RF sensors placed at different
[238] frequency range, omnidirectional antenna locations were used to localize and track a
20 MHz bandwidth UAV using extended Kalman filter
2.437 GHz center 1 UAV − SDR and directional The frequency spectrum of signals
[239] frequency, 100 kHz antenna between UAV and GS were analyzed and
sampling rate observed distinctive amplitude peaks at
certain frequencies for detection of UAVs
2.4 GHz center 2 UAVs Random tree, Guardian WiFi sniffer, The wireless traffic generated by different
[240] frequency random forest, and laptop UAVs was captured using a WiFi sensor,
Logit boost and statistical fingerprinting analysis was
applied to the WiFi traffic for UAV
detection
2.4 GHz center 2 UAVs kNN, SVM, SDR, directional and UAV detection was carried based on
[241] frequency RandF omnidirectional antennas fingerprinting of wireless signals emitted
by the UAV by a wireless sensor. The
extracted features from the RF signal were
used for the classification of UAVs
2.4 GHz center 3 UAVs Deep neural USRP-2943 A brief database of RF signals emitted
[242] frequency network from UAVs are collected and used for
classifying UAVs using deep neural
network
2.422 GHz center 3 UAVs Convolutional USRP-2943R UAV detection and identification is carried
[243] frequency neural network out using RF communications between
UAV and GS and convolutional neural
network
2.4 GHz − 3 UAVs Convolution neural USRP- 2943 UAV detection and classification is
[244] 2.4835 GHz center network performed with the help of UAV RF signal
frequency database and convolutional neural network
2.3 GHz–2.5 GHz 1 UAV Artificial neural Passive receiver and Clutter suppression and artificial neural
[245] center frequency, network computer network is used for the RF-based detection
9.8 GHz bandwidth of micro-UAVs
900 MHz center 2 UAV Deep USRP B200mini Customized RF fingerprinting and deep
[246] frequency TXs and 5 convolutional learning is used for UAV identification
UAV RXs neural network
5.725 − 5.825 GHz, 10 UAVs Single and Spectrum analyzer, and Identification of UAVs in a swarm was
[247] 2.401 − 2.481 GHz multi-neural USRP X310 with carried out by learning subtle changes in
frequency range network UBX 160 daughterboard the transmitted waveform and using NN
2.4 GHz center 10 UAV kNN, SVM, Digital oscilloscope and Wavelet transform analytics were used for
[248] frequency controllers SqueezeNet directional antenna feature extraction and RF fingerprints of
the signals emitted from UAV flight
controller were used for identification and
classification of UAVs
2.4 GHz center 8 UAVs − 8260 WiFi adapter on a Detection and mode identification based on
[249] frequency personal computer encrypted WiFi traffic was carried out for
UAVs using machine learning

B. Communication Systems for Capturing RF Signals Radi-
ated from UAVs for DCT-U
The communication protocols used by UAVs commonly
use the same frequency bands as used by WiFi, e.g.,
2.400–2.483 GHz and 5.725–5.825 GHz. Therefore, RF sig-
nals emitted by UAVs can be captured using WiFi and other
communicaton RXs operating in the same frequency band. In
[240], statistical fingerprint analysis of the WiFi signals was
carried out to detect the presence of unauthorized UAVs. The
characteristics of the UAV control signals and first-person view
transmissions, features of WiFi traffic generated by UAVs,
and machine learning algorithms helped to identify a UAV
 25

# of Classifier Accuracy using all Computational time

con- features (%)2 using all features UAV1 UAV2
trollers (s)2
kNN 97.30 24.85
DA 96.30 19.42
15 SVM 96.47 119.22
NN 96.73 38.73
RandF 98.53 21.37
kNN 95.62 26.16
DA 92.77 19.36
17 SVM 93.82 139.94
Aerial vehicle approaching
NN 92.88 46.04
RandF 9.32 24.71
TABLE XVI
P ERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MACHINE LEARNING
ALGORITHMS FOR DETECTING AND CLASSIFYING DIFFERENT TYPES OF
UAV CONTROLLERS USING RF FINGERPRINTING ( REGENERATED FROM
[235]) Fig. 13: A laser mesh created in the air using two airborne UAVs for detection,
. tracking, and classification of aerial vehicles (regenerated from [254]).

in a WiFi coverage area. Similarly, in [251], a WiFi-based A. Communication Systems

statistical fingerprinting method was used for the detection
and identification of UAVs. The proposed method claimed to
achieve an identification rate of 96%.
In [241], the detection and identification of UAVs were
carried out using captured WiFi signals from UAVs and RF
fingerprinting. Firstly, a UAV was detected based on the
captured RF signals by the WiFi RX, then machine learning
algorithms were used to identify the category of the UAV.
The identification accuracy was higher outdoors compared to
indoors. In [249], machine learning algorithms were used to
analyze the WiFi signals originating from UAVs for control
and video streaming. The analysis helped to detect and identify
UAVs. The proposed approach worked on the encrypted WiFi
traffic also by using the packet size and WiFi traffic inter-
arrival time features. In [252], long-range bluetooth was used
to identify and track UAVs. The project provided a beacon
capability for UAVs that helped in their identification when in
the range of the bluetooth RX.
C. Limitations of Passively Capturing RF SOO Radiated from
UAVs
There are limitations to passively detecting SOO radiated
from UAVs for DCT-U. These limitations include, 1) the
range of the RF analysis methods using different sensors is
dependent on the strength of the radio link, and propagation
channel between the UAV and the controller. Therefore, a
sensor needs to be in the vicinity of the UAV and ground
controller and the propagation channel should be favorable,
2) if a UAV is flying autonomously without any active radio
link, or UAV is mechanically controlled, then the RF analysis
method may not be effective, 3) RF analysis method operates
in a passive mode and the precise location of the UAV cannot
be precisely determined using a single antenna, 4) UAVs
equipped with ECM can be used to deceive, hack, and jam
RF analysis methods.
VII. F UTURE D IRECTIONS
In this section, future directions for DCT-U based on the
lessons learned are provided.
Exploration of new methods for passive UAV detection
through communication systems is a promising research area.
Moreover, there is significant potential for the future of JC&S
with the utilization of 5G and beyond mobile networks [179],
[203], [253]. The progress in JC&S can direct benefit DCT-U.
Beyond the JC&S scenarios previously discussed, opportuni-
ties exist in areas such as microwave communication links
between BSs, marine radio communications, public safety
communications, and sensor fusion from various communi-
cation systems, all of which can be harnessed for DCT-U.
B. Single Long-range and High-resolution Radar
Contrary to distributed sensors, a long-range, wide area cov-
erage, and high-resolution radar may be used. Generally, long-
range radars cover a large area and operate at low frequencies
but have limited resolution. However, if a single long-range,
wide-coverage, high-resolution radar can be realized it can
provide a single point of DCT-U. Compared to distributed
sensors, a single long-range high-resolution radar can have a
small processing delay. The long-range high-resolution radar
can be placed at an optimum location on the ground, sea, or
in space.
C. Quantum Radars
Quantum radars are considered to be radars of the future and
can be used for the detection and tracking of UAVs. There
is limited literature available on quantum radars currently.
A study on quantum radars was carried out in [255]. The
developments and design considerations were covered in this
study. A major benefit of the quantum radar concluded in
the study was their extra degrees of correlation to obtain
information compared to conventional radars. The extra degree
of correlation helped to achieve high resolution and SNR.
D. Hybrid Radars
Hybrid radar systems that consist of two or more radar types
can take advantage of the strengths of different radar systems.
Hybrid radars can be useful for the detection and tracking
of UAVs in a swarm. In [256], a hybrid active and passive

radar system was used. Both the active and passive radars
operated at the same frequency band for spectral efficiency.
The timing uncertainty and mutual interference due to the
simultaneous operation of radars were mitigated through min-
max and weighted sum criteria. In [257] a linear FMCW
and interferometry mode was used for indoor detection and
tracking. The two modes were used for different purposes.
The ranging was carried out using FMCW radar mode and
the positioning of a target was performed using interferometric
radar.
E. Sparse Signal Processing
A major limitation in the detection of UAVs at long dis-
tances using RF-based systems is sparse signal returns. The
sparse signals can be processed using modern sparse signal
processing techniques available in the literature for better
detection of UAVs [55]. For example, orthogonal codes can
be used for complete reconstruction based on sparse signal
returns.
F. Open-Ended, Modular, and Reconfigurable Design
Open-ended, modular, software-defined architecture should
be used for future RF-based systems for the detection of
UAVs. In an open-ended, modular, and software-defined ar-
chitecture, updates and improvements can be made without
significant changes to the overall hardware and software. Also,
autonomous runtime changes can be made easily, e.g., using
AI.
G. Resilience to ECM
RF-based systems should be able to withstand modern
ECM for accurate detection of UAVs. In particular, the RF-
based systems should be able to resist jamming, hacking, and
decoying (virtual and actual decoys). The resistance to ECM
by RF-based systems can be achieved through secure RF
communications using low-energy transmissions, frequency
hopping over a large frequency band, encryption, pulse coding,
and multiple authentication layers.
H. Laser-Based Techniques
Laser is used for different civilian and defense applications.
The laser can also be used for DCT-U. For example, in [100],
a lidar sensor is used for the detection and tracking of small
UAVs. Furthermore, a novel approach using a mesh of laser
beams to detect, track, and classify small UAVs and stealth
aerial vehicles was provided in [254]. At least two airborne
platforms at different spatial positions were required. The two
airborne platforms transmitted laser beams toward the ground
RXs such that a mesh was formed as shown in Fig. 13. If
an aerial vehicle blocked the path of the laser beams, it was
detected and subsequently tracked and classified. Laser beam
steering was also suggested to increase the coverage range and
for better tracking and classification in [254].
26
I. Distributed Sensors and Sensor Fusion
A network of different types of off-the-shelf sensors, e.g.,
imaging, and acoustic sensors, and SDRs can be placed at
distributed locations. The location of the sensors can be
electricity and telecommunication towers, tall buildings, and
other infrastructure. The sensors can be connected to a central
network. The data from different sensors can be fused together
for better situational awareness compared to a single sensor.
The distributed sensors can provide a first layer of detection
over a large area.
J. Regulating the UAV Air Traffic
The threat from malicious and non-cooperative UAVs can be
minimized by regulating UAV air traffic. The UAV traffic can
be regulated by installing control towers similar to air traffic
control towers. The control towers can be installed on already
available infrastructure, e.g., telecommunication towers. A
control tower should be able to autonomously regulate the
UAV traffic in the vicinity, e.g., by assigning tags to registered
UAVs. The tags will be updated when the UAV approaches
the next control tower limit, which can help to identify
unregistered and malicious UAVs. Another solution is by using
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Protocol (ADS-
B) protocol for the management of UAV traffic. ADS-B
can provide improved situational awareness for UAV and
civilian airline operators ensuring safe operations. Moreover,
by adopting different security measures for ADS-B [258],
ECM can be minimized. Other future possibilities for UAV
traffic management include using remote ID [259], unmanned
aircraft system traffic management (UTM) [260], advanced air
mobility (AAM) [261], and drone corridors [262].
K. Airborne UAVs
The sensors on airborne vehicles, e.g., radars can provide
long-range detection against aerial threats [90]. However, the
operational and maintenance cost of manned aerial surveil-
lance vehicles is large. A possible solution is to use sensors
onboard UAVs for surveillance. The surveillance UAVs can
be either remotely controlled by a human operator, can work
autonomously using AI, or both, and can fly as a network in
a swarm. Furthermore, tethered UAVs and/or hot air balloons
at different locations can be used for UAV surveillance.
L. Space Assets
The monitoring of UAV can also be performed using sensors
in space, such as radar, imaging, and infrared sensors [263],
[264]. The space-based sensors can provide early warning
against several different aerial threats e.g. UAV swarms. The
sensors placed in space have a long-range and wide coverage
area and have added advantage of mobility. However, space
sensors need to take into account the atmospheric, and space
effects, and long delays.

M. Exploring Cost Effective Solutions
To counter malicious UAVs, cost-effective solutions should
be explored. For example, a cost-effective solution is to use
simulators. Obtaining data from real-time measurements is
time-consuming and expensive. Moreover, it is difficult to
cover different possible scenarios. On the other hand, sim-
ulators imitating real-world scenarios can be used to generate
large amounts of data in different scenarios at a low cost. The
data obtained from simulators can be used to train the radar
systems for DCT in real-time.
VIII. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS
In this survey paper, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the
capabilities, threats, and challenges associated with UAVs. We
offer a comprehensive overview of three RF-based systems:
radars, communication systems, and RF analyzers for DCT-
U. Our survey encompasses fundamental radar processing and
discusses both conventional and modern radar systems for
DCT-U. Additionally, we explore JC&S in active mode and
passive radars based on communication systems for DCT-U.
We also discuss various methods for capturing RF signals of
interest emitted by UAVs for DCT-U. The paper addresses
the limitations of RF-based systems for DCT-U and provides
insights into future directions based on lessons learned.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. M. Trim, “A brief history of the development of radar in Great
Britain up to 1945,” Measurement and Control, vol. 35, no. 10, pp.
299–301, 2002.
[2] M. A. Richards, J. Scheer, W. A. Holm, and W. L. Melvin, “Principles
of modern radar,” 2010.
[3] M. A. Richards, W. L. Melvin, J. A. Scheer, and J. Scheer, Principles
of Modern Radar: Advanced Techniques. IET, 2012, vol. 2.
[4] T. Wild, V. Braun, and H. Viswanathan, “Joint design of communication
and sensing for beyond 5G and 6G systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp.
30 845–30 857, 2021.
[5] MarketsAndMarkets. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Market worth
$58.4 billion by 2026. Accessed on: Aug. 24, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/unmann
ed-aerial-vehicles-uav.asp
[6] New America. Non-State Actors with Drone Capabilities. Accessed
on: Mar. 12, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.newamerica.org/i
nternational-security/reports/world-drones/non-state-actors-with-drone
-capabilities/
[7] J. Bell. Saudi drone attacks highlight a new era of ‘war-by-remote’
in the Middle East: Expert. Accessed on: Mar. 13, 2021. [Online].
Available: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2021/03/10/Saudi-d
rone-attacks-highlight-a-new-era-of-war-by-remote-in-the-Middle-E
ast-Expert
[8] W. Khawaja, V. Semkin, N. I. Ratyal, Q. Yaqoob, J. Gul, and I. Guvenc,
“Threats from and countermeasures for unmanned aerial and underwa-
ter vehicles,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 10, p. 3896, 2022.
[9] V. P. Riabukha, “Radar surveillance of unmanned aerial vehicles,”
Radioelectron. and Commun. Syst., vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 561–573, 2020.
[10] I. Guvenc, F. Koohifar, S. Singh, M. L. Sichitiu, and D. Matolak, “De-
tection, tracking, and interdiction for amateur drones,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 75–81, 2018.
[11] C. Xiaolong, C. Weishi, R. Yunhua, H. Yong, G. Jian, and D. Yunlong,
“Progress and prospects of radar target detection and recognition
technology for flying birds and unmanned aerial vehicles,” J. of Radar,
vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 803–827, 2020.
[12] J. Wang, Y. Liu, and H. Song, “Counter-unmanned aircraft system(s)
(C-UAS): State of the art, challenges, and future trends,” IEEE Aerosp.
and Electron. Syst. Mag., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 4–29, 2021.
[13] H. Kang, J. Joung, J. Kim, J. Kang, and Y. S. Cho, “Protect your sky:
A survey of counter unmanned aerial vehicle systems,” IEEE Access,
vol. 8, pp. 168 671–168 710, 2020.
27
[14] B. Taha and A. Shoufan, “Machine learning-based drone detection and
classification: State-of-the-art in research,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp.
138 669–138 682, 2019.
[15] F.-L. Chiper, A. Martian, C. Vladeanu, I. Marghescu, R. Craciunescu,
and O. Fratu, “Drone detection and defense systems: Survey and a
software-defined radio-based solution,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 1453,
2022.
[16] J. A. Zhang, M. L. Rahman, K. Wu, X. Huang, Y. J. Guo, S. Chen, and
J. Yuan, “Enabling joint communication and radar sensing in mobile
networks—a survey,” IEEE Commun. Surv. & Tut., vol. 24, no. 1, pp.
306–345, 2022.
[17] J. A. Zhang, F. Liu, C. Masouros, R. W. Heath, Z. Feng, L. Zheng, and
A. Petropulu, “An overview of signal processing techniques for joint
communication and radar sensing,” IEEE J. of Sel. Topics in Signal
Process., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1295–1315, 2021.
[18] P. K. Rai, A. Kumar, M. Z. A. Khan, and L. R. Cenkeramaddi, “LTE-
based passive radars and applications: a review,” Int. J. of Remote Sens.,
vol. 42, no. 19, pp. 7489–7518, 2021.
[19] D. Poullin, “UAV detection and localization using passive DVB-T radar
MFN and SFN,” Sci. and Technol. Org., vol. 10, 2016.
[20] M. M. Alaboudi, M. Abu Talib, and Q. Nasir, “Radio frequency-
based techniques of drone detection and classification using machine
learning,” in Proc. of Int. Conf. on Robotics and Artif. Intell., 2020,
pp. 278–282.
[21] P. Hollinger, T. Powley. Amateur drone pilots face flight safety
test in UK. Accessed on: Aug. 14, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ft.com/content/d356dfd6-6e31-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa
[22] Primetake. The Emerging Drone Threat. Accessed on: Aug. 14, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.primetake.com/the-emerging-drone-t
hreat/
[23] G. Ding, Q. Wu, L. Zhang, Y. Lin, T. A. Tsiftsis, and Y.-D. Yao, “An
amateur drone surveillance system based on the cognitive internet of
things,” IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 29–35, 2018.
[24] C. Palestini. Countering drones: looking for the silver bullet. Accessed
on: Mar. 03, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.nato.int/docu/revi
ew/articles/2020/12/16/countering-drones-looking-for-the-silver-bulle
t/index.html
[25] Aaronia AG. Drone Defence of your Airspace. Accessed on: Mar. 14,
2021. [Online]. Available: https://drone-detection-system.com/
[26] J. Flórez, J. Ortega, A. Betancourt, A. Garcı́a, M. Bedoya, and J. S.
Botero, “A review of algorithms, methods, and techniques for detecting
UAVs and UAS using audio, radiofrequency, and video applications,”
TecnoLógicas, vol. 23, no. 48, pp. 269–285, 2020.
[27] A. Tiwari and Lakshmi, “Green radars: Dual use of communication
& navigational transmitters for surveillance of airports against stealth
aircrafts & swarms / mini / micro UAVs,” 2019.
[28] I. Nemer, T. Sheltami, I. Ahmad, A. U.-H. Yasar, and M. A. Abdeen,
“RF-based UAV detection and identification using hierarchical learning
approach,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 6, p. 1947, 2021.
[29] S. M. Idhis, T. Dawdi, Q. Nasir, M. A. Talib, and Y. Omran, “Detection
and localization of unmanned aerial vehicles based on radar technol-
ogy,” in Advanced Comput. and Intell. Technol.: Proc. of ICACIT.
Springer, 2022, pp. 429–452.
[30] M. Ezuma, C. K. Anjinappa, V. Semkin, and I. Guvenc, “Comparative
analysis of radar-cross-section- based UAV recognition techniques,”
IEEE Sensors J., vol. 22, no. 18, pp. 17 932–17 949, 2022.
[31] V. C. Chen, F. Li, S.-S. Ho, and H. Wechsler, “Micro-Doppler effect
in radar: phenomenon, model, and simulation study,” IEEE Trans. on
Aerosp. and electron. syst., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 2–21, 2006.
[32] M. C. Budge and S. R. German, Basic RADAR analysis. Artech
House, 2020.
[33] C. H. Hansen, C. J. Doolan, and K. L. Hansen, Wind farm noise:
measurement, assessment, and control. John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
[34] A. Ghasemi, A. Abedi, and F. Ghasemi, Propagation Engineering in
Radio Links Design. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[35] H. Jeske, Atmospheric Effects on Radar Target Identification and
Imaging: Propagation Effects on the Non-Ionized Atmosphere on the
Presentation and Analysis of Radar Targets, Especially in the Mm-
to M-Range of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2012, vol. 27.
[36] M. Hashim and S. Stavrou, “Measurements and modelling of wind
influence on radiowave propagation through vegetation,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 1055–1064, 2006.
[37] H. Zhang, Q. Li, X. Guo, and C. Hou, “Research on radio wave
propagation prediction model using 3-D parabolic equation over rough
sea surface,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Applied Comput. Electromagn. Soc.
(ACES-China) Symp., 2021, pp. 1–2.

[38] RF Cafe. Electronic Warfare and Radar Systems Engineering
Handbook: Duty cycle. Accessed on: May 08, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/ew-radar-han
dbook/duty-cycle.htm
[39] Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and
Technology Lab. Division. Compliance Measurement Procedures for
Unlicensed-National Information Infrastructure Devices Operating in
the 5250-5350 MHz and 5470-5725 MHz Bands Incorporating
Dynamic Frequency Selection. Accessed on: Aug. 24, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.ieee802.org/18/Meeting documents/2006 May
/DFS1.pdf
[40] A. Yarovoy, “Ultra-wideband radars for high-resolution imaging and
target classification,” in Proc. IEEE Eur. Radar Conf., Munich, Ger-
many, Oct. 2007, pp. 1–4.
[41] R. Benjamin, Modulation, resolution and signal processing in radar,
sonar and related systems: international series of monographs in
electronics and instrumentation. Elsevier, 2014, vol. 35.
[42] E. C. Farnett, G. H. Stevens, and M. Skolnik, “Pulse compression
radar,” Radar handbook, vol. 2, pp. 10–11, 1990.
[43] E. Spano and O. Ghebrebrhan, “Pulse coding techniques for ST/MST
radar systems: a general approach based on a matrix formulation,” IEEE
Trans. on Geosci. and Remote Sens., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 304–316, 1996.
[44] M. M. Naghsh, M. Soltanalian, P. Stoica, and M. Modarres-Hashemi,
“Radar code design for detection of moving targets,” IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. and Electron. Syst., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 2762–2778, 2014.
[45] J. Bentley and J. Patoux, “The continuing evolution of radar, from
rotating dish to digital beamforming,” Microw. J., vol. 65, no. 9, 2022.
[46] D.-B. Kim and S.-M. Hong, “Multiple-target tracking and track man-
agement for an FMCW radar network,” EURASIP J. on Adv. in Signal
Process., vol. 2013, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2013.
[47] S. Wan, “Multi-target detection and tracking with 8 GHz FMCW
radar system,” M.Sc. thesis, Elect. Eng. Dept., Delft Univ. of Technol.,
Netherlands, 2020.
[48] M. Khalil, A. S. Eltrass, O. Elzaafarany, B. Galal, K. Walid, A. Tarek,
and O. Ahmadien, “An improved approach for multi-target detection
and tracking in automotive radar systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
on Electromagn. in Adv. Appl. (ICEAA), Cairns, QLD, Australia, Sep.
2016, pp. 480–483.
[49] M. Laurenzis, S. Hengy, A. Hommes, F. Kloeppel, A. Shoykhetbrod,
T. Geibig, W. Johannes, P. Naz, and F. Christnacher, “Multi-sensor field
trials for detection and tracking of multiple small unmanned aerial
vehicles flying at low altitude,” in Proc. Signal Process., Sensor/Inf.
Fusion, and Target Recognit. XXVI, vol. 10200. SPIE, 2017, pp.
384–396.
[50] C. Zhou, Y. Liu, and Y. Song, “Detection and tracking of a UAV
via hough transform,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Radar (RADAR),
Guangzhou, China, Oct. 2016, pp. 1–4.
[51] H. Godrich, A. M. Haimovich, and R. S. Blum, “Target localization
techniques and tools for MIMO radar,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf.,
Rome, Italy, May 2008, pp. 1–6.
[52] R. Kumar, J.-c. Cousin, and B. Huyart, “2D indoor localization system
using FMCW radars and DMTD technique,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar
Conf., Lille, France, Oct. 2014, pp. 1–5.
[53] M. Ummenhofer, M. Kohler, J. Schell, and D. W. O’Hagan, “Direction
of arrival estimation techniques for passive radar based 3D target
localization,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf., Boston, MA, Apr. 2019,
pp. 1–6.
[54] I. Ullah, Y. Shen, X. Su, C. Esposito, and C. Choi, “A localization based
on unscented Kalman filter and Particle filter localization algorithms,”
IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 2233–2246, 2020.
[55] J. Zhang, D. Zhu, and G. Zhang, “Adaptive compressed sensing radar
oriented toward cognitive detection in dynamic sparse target scene,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Proc., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1718–1729, 2012.
[56] I. Chernyak and M. Sato, “3D image reconstruction algorithm for a
sparse array radar system based on compressive sensing,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Geosci. and Remote Sens. Symp. (IGARSS), Fort Worth, TX, Jul.
2017, pp. 2392–2395.
[57] S. Fortunati, R. Grasso, F. Gini, M. S. Greco, and K. LePage, “Single-
snapshot DOA estimation by using compressed sensing,” EURASIP J.
on Adv. in Signal Process., vol. 2014, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2014.
[58] A. Huizing, M. Heiligers, B. Dekker, J. de Wit, L. Cifola, and
R. Harmanny, “Deep learning for classification of mini-UAVs using
micro-Doppler spectrograms in cognitive radar,” IEEE Aerosp. and
Electron. Syst. Mag., vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 46–56, 2019.
[59] F. Barbaresco, D. Brooks, and C. Adnet, “Machine and deep learning
for drone radar recognition by micro-doppler and kinematic criteria,”
28
in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), Florence, Italy, Sep. 2020,
pp. 1–6.
[60] X. Zheng and M. Chunyao, “An intelligent target detection method
of UAV swarms based on improved KM algorithm,” Chinese J. of
Aeronautics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 539–553, 2021.
[61] P. F. Easthope, “Tracking simulated UAV swarms using particle filters,”
in Proc. IET Conf. on Data Fusion Target Tracking: Algorithms and
Applications, 2014, pp. 1–6.
[62] M. Ezuma, C. K. Anjinappa, M. Funderburk, and I. Guvenc, “Radar
cross section based statistical recognition of UAVs at microwave
frequencies,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. and Electron. Syst., vol. 58, no. 1,
pp. 27–46, 2022.
[63] M. Ezuma, O. Ozdemir, C. K. Anjinappa, W. A. Gulzar, and I. Guvenc,
“Micro-UAV detection with a low-grazing angle millimeter wave
radar,” in Proc. IEEE Radio and Wireless Symp. (RWS), Orlando, FL,
Jan. 2019, pp. 1–4.
[64] F. Feng, H. Wang, Z. Feng, H. Zhai, D. Xu, S. Quan, W. Xu, and
S. Ding, “The design of a phased array radar for detecting unmanned
aerial vehicle,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Microw. and Millimeter
Wave Technol. (ICMMT), Guangzhou, China, May 2019, pp. 1–3.
[65] A. Aldowesh, T. Alnuaim, and A. Alzogaiby, “Slow-moving micro-
UAV detection with a small scale digital array radar,” in Proc. IEEE
Radar Conf. (RadarConf), Boston, MA, Apr. 2019, pp. 1–5.
[66] J. Ochodnický, Z. Matousek, M. Babjak, and J. Kurty, “Drone detection
by Ku-band battlefield radar,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Mil. Technol.
(ICMT), Brno, Czech Republic, May 2017, pp. 613–616.
[67] A. Laučys, S. Rudys, M. Kinka, P. Ragulis, J. Aleksandravičius,
D. Jablonskas, D. Bručas, E. Daugėla, and L. Mačiulis, “Investigation
of detection possibility of UAVs using low cost marine radar,” Aviation,
vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 48–53, 2019.
[68] R. May, Y. Steinheim, P. Kvaløy, R. Vang, and F. Hanssen, “Perfor-
mance test and verification of an off-the-shelf automated avian radar
tracking system,” Ecology and evolution, vol. 7, no. 15, pp. 5930–5938,
2017.
[69] N. Eriksson, “Conceptual study of a future drone detection system,”
Countering a threat posed by a disruptive technol. Dept. of Ind. and
Mater. Sci., Chalmers Univ. of Technol., Gothenburg, Sweden, 2018.
[70] L. Neng-Jing and Z. Yi-Ting, “A survey of radar ECM and ECCM,”
IEEE Trans. on Aerosp. and Electron. Syst., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1110–
1120, 1995.
[71] G. Morris and T. Kastle, “Trends in electronic counter-
countermeasures,” in Proc. IEEE Nat. Telesyst. Conf., Atlanta,
GA, Mar. 1991, pp. 265–269.
[72] A. Farina and M. Skolnik, “Electronic counter-countermeasures,” in
Radar handbook. McGraw-Hill New York, NY, USA, 2008, vol. 2.
[73] M. Elsayed, M. Reda, A. S. Mashaly, and A. S. Amein, “Review on
real-time drone detection based on visual band electro-optical (EO)
sensor,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Intell. Comput. and Inf. Syst.
(ICICIS), 2021, pp. 57–65.
[74] P. Andraši, T. Radišić, M. Muštra, and J. Ivošević, “Night-time detec-
tion of UAVs using thermal infrared camera,” Transp. Res. Procedia,
vol. 28, pp. 183–190, 2017.
[75] X. Chang, C. Yang, J. Wu, X. Shi, and Z. Shi, “A surveillance system
for drone localization and tracking using acoustic arrays,” in Proc.
IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Proc. Workshop (SAM),
2018, pp. 573–577.
[76] S. Jovanoska, M. Brötje, and W. Koch, “Multisensor data fusion for
UAV detection and tracking,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Symp. (IRS),
2018, pp. 1–10.
[77] C. Wang, J. Tian, J. Cao, and X. Wang, “Deep learning-based UAV
detection in pulse-doppler radar,” IEEE Trans. on Geosci. and Remote
Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–12, 2022.
[78] C. Liang, N. Cao, X. Lu, and Y. Ye, “UAV detection using continuous
wave radar,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Information Commun. and
Signal Processing (ICICSP), 2018, pp. 1–5.
[79] J. Lee, M. Park, I. Eo, and B. Koo, “An X-Band FMCW Radar for
Detection and Tracking of Miniaturized UAVs,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. on Comput. Sci. and Comput. Intell. (CSCI), Las Vegas, NV,
Dec. 2017, pp. 1844–1845.
[80] T. W. Mathumo, T. G. Swart, and R. W. Focke, “Implementation of a
GNU radio and python FMCW radar toolkit,” in Proc. IEEE AFRICON,
Cape Town, South Africa, Sep. 2017, pp. 585–590.
[81] J. Drozdowicz, M. Wielgo, P. Samczynski, K. Kulpa, J. Krzonkalla,
M. Mordzonek, M. Bryl, and Z. Jakielaszek, “35 GHz FMCW drone
detection system,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Symp. (IRS), Krakow,
Poland, May 2016, pp. 1–4.

[82] P. K. Rai, H. Idsøe, R. R. Yakkati, A. Kumar, M. Z. Ali Khan,
P. K. Yalavarthy, and L. R. Cenkeramaddi, “Localization and activity
classification of unmanned aerial vehicle using mmWave FMCW
radars,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 21, no. 14, pp. 16 043–16 053, 2021.
[83] S. Rudys, A. Laučys, P. Ragulis, R. Aleksiejūnas, K. Stankevičius,
M. Kinka, M. Razgūnas, D. Bručas, D. Udris, and R. Pomarnacki,
“Hostile UAV detection and neutralization using a UAV system,”
Drones, vol. 6, no. 9, p. 250, 2022.
[84] M. Jahangir, G. Atkinson, M. Antoniou, C. Baker, J. Sadler, and
S. Reynolds, “Measurements of birds and drones with L-Band staring
radar,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Symp. (IRS), Berlin, Germany, Jun.
2021, pp. 1–10.
[85] M. Jahangir and C. J. Baker, “Class U-space drone test flight results
for non-cooperative surveillance using an L-band 3-D staring radar,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Symp. (IRS), Ulm, Germany, Jun. 2019, pp.
1–11.
[86] H. Meikle, Modern radar systems. Artech House, 2008.
[87] A. K. Agrawal, B. A. Kopp, M. H. Luesse, and K. W. O Haver,
“Active phased array antenna development for modern shipboard radar
systems,” Johns Hopkins APL tech. dig., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 600–613,
2001.
[88] R. Bil and W. Holpp, “Modern phased array radar systems in Germany,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Phased Array Syst. and Technol. (PAST),
2016, pp. 1–7.
[89] G.-K. Gaitanakis, G. Limnaios, and K. C. Zikidis, “On the use of
AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar and IRST (infrared
search&track) system to detect and track low observable threats,” in
MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 304. EDP Sciences, 2019, p. 04001.
[90] W. Khawaja, Q. Yaqoob, and I. Guvenc, “RL-Based Detection, Track-
ing, and Classification of Malicious UAV Swarms through Airborne
Cognitive Multibeam Multifunction Phased Array Radar,” Drones,
vol. 7, no. 7, 2023.
[91] A. Aldowesh, M. Shoaib, K. Jamil, S. Alhumaidi, and M. Alam, “A
passive bistatic radar experiment for very low radar cross-section target
detection,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf., Johannesburg, South Africa,
Oct. 2015, pp. 406–410.
[92] F. Hoffmann, M. Ritchie, F. Fioranelli, A. Charlish, and H. Griffiths,
“Micro-Doppler based detection and tracking of UAVs with multistatic
radar,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), Philadelphia, PA, May
2016, pp. 1–6.
[93] S. Z. Gurbuz, H. D. Griffiths, A. Charlish, M. Rangaswamy, M. S.
Greco, and K. Bell, “An overview of cognitive radar: Past, present,
and future,” IEEE Aerosp. and Electron. Syst. Mag., vol. 34, no. 12,
pp. 6–18, 2019.
[94] G. J. Mendis, J. Wei, and A. Madanayake, “Deep learning cognitive
radar for micro UAS detection and classification,” in Proc. IEEE
Cognitive Commun. for Aerosp. Appl. Workshop (CCAA), 2017, pp.
1–5.
[95] T. Yang, A. De Maio, J. Zheng, T. Su, V. Carotenuto, and A. Aubry,
“An adaptive radar signal processor for UAVs detection with super-
resolution capabilities,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 21, no. 18, pp. 20 778–
20 787, 2021.
[96] D. Santos, P. Sebastião, and N. Souto, “Low-cost SDR based FMCW
radar for UAV localization,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Wireless Pers.
Multimedia Commun. (WPMC), 2019, pp. 1–6.
[97] X. Wang, H. Liang, and P. Wang, “Detection and tracking of UAVs
using interferometric radar,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Conf. (RADAR),
Toulon, France, Sep. 2019, pp. 1–6.
[98] B. Anderson, J. Ellingson, M. Eyler, D. Buck, C. K. Peterson,
T. McLain, and K. F. Warnick, “Networked radar systems for cooper-
ative tracking of UAVs,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Unmanned Aircr.
Syst. (ICUAS), Atlanta, GA, Jun. 2019, pp. 909–915.
[99] A. Guerra, D. Dardari, and P. M. Djurić, “Dynamic radar network of
UAVs: A joint navigation and tracking approach,” IEEE Access, vol. 8,
pp. 116 454–116 469, 2020.
[100] M. Hammer, M. Hebel, M. Laurenzis, and M. Arens, “Lidar-based
detection and tracking of small UAVs,” in Emerg. Imag. and Sens.
Technol. for Secur. and Defence III; and Unmanned Sensors, Syst.,
and Countermeasures, vol. 10799. Int. Soc. for Opt. and Photon.,
2018, p. 107990S.
[101] Y. Wei, T. Hong, and M. Kadoch, “Improved Kalman filter variants for
UAV tracking with radar motion models,” Electron., vol. 9, no. 5, p.
768, 2020.
[102] M. Jian, Z. Lu, and V. C. Chen, “Drone detection and tracking based
on phase-interferometric doppler radar,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf.
(RadarConf), 2018, pp. 1146–1149.
29
[103] J. Klare, O. Biallawons, and D. Cerutti-Maori, “UAV detection with
MIMO radar,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Symp. (IRS), Prague, Czech
Republic, Jun. 2017, pp. 1–8.
[104] X. Chen, B. Chen, J. Guan, Y. Huang, and Y. He, “Space-range-doppler
focus-based low-observable moving target detection using frequency
diverse array MIMO Radar,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 43 892–43 904,
2018.
[105] F. Yang, K. Qu, M. Hao, Q. Liu, X. Chen, and F. Xu, “Practical
investigation of a MIMO radar system for small drones detection,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Conf. (RADAR), Toulon, France, Sep. 2019,
pp. 1–5.
[106] K. Z. Rajab, B. Wu, P. Alizadeh, and A. Alomainy, “Multi-target
tracking and activity classification with millimeter-wave radar,” Appl.
Phys. Lett., vol. 119, no. 3, 2021.
[107] S. Lee, H. Chun, W. Lee et al., “Compressed sensing based clutter
rejection of UWB radar for near field detection of moving drones,” J.
Korean Inst. of Defense Technol., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 001–005, 2021.
[108] G. Gaigals and E. Vavilina, “Simulation of compressed sensing based
passive radar for drone detection,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop on Ad-
vances in Inf., Electron. and Elect. Eng. (AIEEE), 2017, pp. 1–5.
[109] S. Pan, D. Zhu, and F. Zhang, “Microwave photonics for modern radar
systems,” Trans. of Nanjing Univ. of Aeronaut. & Astronaut., vol. 31,
no. 3, pp. 219–240, 2014.
[110] G. Serafino, F. Scotti, L. Lembo, B. Hussain, C. Porzi, A. Malacarne,
S. Maresca, D. Onori, P. Ghelfi, and A. Bogoni, “Toward a new gen-
eration of radar systems based on microwave photonic technologies,”
J. of Lightwave Technol., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 643–650, 2019.
[111] Y. Bae, J. Shin, S.-G. Lee, and H. Kim, “Field experiment of photonic
radar for low-RCS target detection and high-resolution image acquisi-
tion,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 63 559–63 566, 2021.
[112] Y. Liu, Z. Zhang, M. Burla, and B. J. Eggleton, “11-GHz-Bandwidth
Photonic Radar using MHz Electronics,” Laser & Photon. Rev., vol. 16,
no. 4, p. 2100549, 2022.
[113] C.-h. An, J. Yang, R. Ran, U. Y. Pak, Y.-J. Ryu, and D. K. Kim,
“Tactical UAV localization using coordinated monopulse trackers with
low rate feedback,” Int. J. of Adv. Robot. Syst., vol. 10, no. 7, p. 302,
2013.
[114] B. Torvik, K. E. Olsen, and H. Griffiths, “Classification of birds and
UAVs based on radar polarimetry,” IEEE Geosci. and Remote Sens.
Lett., vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1305–1309, 2016.
[115] B. K. Kim, H.-S. Kang, and S.-O. Park, “Experimental analysis of small
drone polarimetry based on micro-doppler signature,” IEEE Geosci.
and Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1670–1674, 2017.
[116] W. Wang, P. Bai, X. Liang, J. Zhang, and L. Hu, “Optimal deployment
analysis of airborne radars detecting stealth target using UAV swarms,”
in Proc. IEEE CSAA Guid., Navigation and Control Conf. (CGNCC),
2018, pp. 1–8.
[117] P. Zablocky. Aerial dragnet. Accessed on: Aug. 18, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.darpa.mil/program/aerial-dragnet
[118] Raytheon Missiles & Defense. U.S. Navy’s SPY-6 Family of Radars.
Accessed on: Sep. 30, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.raythe
onmissilesanddefense.com/capabilities/products/spy6-radars
[119] Lockheed Martin. AN/TPQ-53. Accessed on: Sep. 29, 2021. [Online].
Available: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-m
artin/rms/documents/ground-based-air-surveillance-radars/BRO 591
81 Q-53 2015%20updated%20brochure 11x17 WEB(1).pdf
[120] Union of concerned scientists. The Disastrous US Approach to
Strategic Missile Defense. Accessed on: Feb. 8, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/07/Sh
ielded-from-Oversight-appendix-10.pdf
[121] Lockheed Martin. Phoenix Eye AN/APY-12. Accessed on: Sep. 29,
2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr
oducts/phoenix-eye-an-apy-12.html
[122] Radartutorial. Patriot Radar AN/MPQ-53. Accessed on: Feb. 8, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/06.missile/
karte003.en.html
[123] Global Security. AN/SPG-62 Fire Control Radar. Accessed on: Sep.
29, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/
systems/ship/systems/an-spg-62.htm
[124] Global Security. 64N6 / 91N6E - TOMBSTONE / Big Bird. Accessed
on: Sep. 29, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.globalsecurity.org
/military/world/russia/tombstone.htm
[125] . ELM-2084 S-Band MMR Multi-Mission Radar. Accessed on: Feb.
8, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.armyrecognition.com/israel
israeli military missile vehicles systems u/elm-2084 s-band mmr
multi-mission radar technical data sheet specifications pictures vid
eo 12901172.html

[126] Defense World. Pakistan Test-fires Newly Inducted LY-80 Weapons
System. Accessed on: Feb. 8, 2022. [Online]. Available: https:
//www.defenseworld.net/news/24047/Pakistan Test fires Newly Ind
ucted LY 80 Weapons System#.YgIGfupBzIU
[127] H. Michel. COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS. Accessed on: Apr. 25,
2022. [Online]. Available: https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2018/02/C
SD-Counter-Drone-Systems-Report.pdf
[128] Unmannedairspace. The counter UAS directory. Accessed on: Apr.
25, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.unmannedairspace.info/wp
-content/uploads/2019/05/Counter-UAS-directory.-November-2018.-v
3.pdf
[129] Accipiterradar. Accipiter’s Radar Intelligence Network Platform
Technology. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.accipiterradar.com/products/safety/drone-uav-detection-t
racking-alerting/
[130] SkyWin. ALX Systems. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.skywin.be/en/members/alx-systems
[131] Aveillant. Gamekeeper 16U. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.aveillant.com/products/gamekeeper/
[132] DeTect. Drone Detection & Defense Systems. Accessed on: Apr. 25,
2022. [Online]. Available: http://detect-inc.com/drone-detection-defen
se-systems/
[133] M2K technologies. DroneShield. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.m2ktechnologies.com/admin/fileupl
oads/1501501302.pdf
[134] T. Hoey. DroneShield launches compact and portable RadarZero for
drone detection. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/191258/drones
hield-launches-compact-and-portable-radarzero-for-drone-detection-1
91258.html
[135] T. Eshel. U.S. Army to Evaluate Counter-Drone Gun System.
Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://defense-upd
ate.com/20170314 drs c-uas.html
[136] Dynetics. Dynetics selected as a Phase 1 performer for DARPA’s
Mobile Force Protection program. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.dynetics.com/newsroom/news/2017/
dynetics-selected-as-a-phase-1-performer-for-darpas-mobile-force-p
rotection-program
[137] iHLS. First Operational Use of Israeli Drone Defender System
Unveiled. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available: https:
//i-hls.com/archives/81023
[138] HENSOLDT. SharpEye. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://uk.hensoldt.net/about-us/sharpeye/
[139] Meritis. Drone Defence Systems, Drone Radar SR-9000S. Accessed on:
Apr. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://systeme-anti-drone.fr/wp-c
ontent/uploads/2016/09/Meritis-Drone-Defence-Radar-SR-9000S.pdf
[140] Miltronix. Drone Detection Radar. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://miltronix.co.uk/portfolio/drone-detection-r
adar/
[141] MyDefence. Drone Alarm and Mitigation System for Vehicle
Installations. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://mydefence.dk/vehicle-and-vessel/
[142] T. Eshel. Mobile Radar Optimized to Detect UAVs, Precision
Guided Weapons. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://defense-update.com/20130208 mobile-radar-optimized-to-det
ect-uavs-precision-guided-weapons.html
[143] C. Chant. Unique 3D bird detection radar to be launched. Accessed
on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads
/ois-at-3d-bird-detection-radar-for-iaf.359686/
[144] QinetiQ. Obsidian Counter Drone system. Accessed on: Apr. 25,
2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.qinetiq.com/en/what-we-do/se
rvices-and-products/counter-drone-systems
[145] Rada. Multi-Mission Hemispheric Radar. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.rada.com/products/mhr
[146] Robinradar. Affordable. 360 degree coverage. Fast-tracking. Fully
automatic drone classification. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.robinradar.com/elvira-anti-drone-system
[147] A. R. Technologies. ART Midrange 3D. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.advancedradartechnologies.com/prod
ucts/art-drone-sentinel-2/
[148] Aaronia. The best Anti-UAV system to monitor, detect and defeat
unwanted drones. Accessed on: Apr. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://downloads.aaronia.com/datasheets/solutions/drone detection/A
aronia AARTOS Drone Detection System.pdf
[149] Fortem Technologies. Products offered by fortem technologies.
Accessed on: Aug. 23, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://fortemtech.c
om/
30
[150] Echodyne Corp. UAV radar. Accessed on: Aug. 23, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.echodyne.com/defense/uav-radar/
[151] SRC Inc. The lstar (v)2 system is a low-cost, tactical radar designed
to fill critical gaps in air surveillance to protect vital infrastructure
and other high value assets. Accessed on: Aug. 23, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.srcinc.com/pdf/Radars-and-Sensors-LSTAR-V
2.pdf
[152] H. Forstén, T. Kiuru, M. Hirvonen, M. Varonen, and M. Kaynak,
“Scalable 60 GHz FMCW Frequency-Division Multiplexing MIMO
radar,” IEEE Trans. on Microw. Theory and Technol., vol. 68, no. 7,
pp. 2845–2855, 2020.
[153] P. Tait, Introduction to radar target recognition. IET, 2005, vol. 18.
[154] J. Gamba, “Target recognition and classification techniques,” in Radar
Signal Process. for Auton. Driving. Springer, 2020, pp. 105–121.
[155] E. Ozturk, F. Erden, and I. Guvenc, “RF-based low-SNR classification
of UAVs using convolutional neural networks,” ITU J. Future and
Evolving Technol. (JFET), vol. 5, pp. 39–52, July 2021.
[156] P. Molchanov, “Radar target classification by micro-doppler contribu-
tions,” Ph.D. Thesis, Tampere Univ. of Technol., Finland, 2014.
[157] A. A. Sentsov, S. A. Ivanov, S. A. Nenashev, and E. L. Turnetskaya,
“Classification and recognition of objects on radar portraits formed by
the equipment of mobile small-size radar systems,” in Proc. IEEE Wave
Electron. and its Appl. in Inf. and Telecommun. Syst. (WECONF), St.
Petersburg, Russia, Jun. 2020, pp. 1–4.
[158] P. Molchanov, K. Egiazarian, J. Astola, R. I. A. Harmanny, and J. J. M.
de Wit, “Classification of small UAVs and birds by micro-doppler
signatures,” in Proc. IEEE Eur. Radar Conf., Nuremberg, Germany,
Oct. 2013, pp. 172–175.
[159] S. Park, S. Shin, Y. Kim, E. T. Matson, K. Lee, P. J. Kolodzy, J. C.
Slater, M. Scherreik, M. Sam, J. C. Gallagher, B. R. Fox, and M. Hop-
meier, “Combination of radar and audio sensors for identification of
rotor-type unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),” in IEEE Sensors, 2015,
pp. 1–4.
[160] J. Mazumder and A. B. Raj, “Detection and classification of UAV using
propeller Doppler profiles for counter UAV systems,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. Commun. Electron. Syst. (ICCES), Coimbatore, India, Jun.
2020, pp. 221–227.
[161] B.-S. Oh, X. Guo, and Z. Lin, “A UAV classification system based
on FMCW radar micro-Doppler signature analysis,” Expert Syst. with
Appl., vol. 132, pp. 239–255, 2019.
[162] R. I. Harmanny, J. J. de Wit, and G. Premel-Cabic, “Radar micro-
doppler mini-UAV classification using spectrograms and cepstro-
grams,” Int. J. of Microw. and Wireless Technol., vol. 7, no. 3-4, pp.
469–477, 2015.
[163] X. Cai, M. Giallorenzo, and K. Sarabandi, “Machine learning-based
target classification for MMW radar in autonomous driving,” IEEE
Trans. on Intell. Vehics., pp. 1–1, 2021.
[164] X. Cai and K. Sarabandi, “A machine learning based 77 GHz radar
target classification for autonomous vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp.
on Ant. and Propag. and USNC-URSI Radio Sci. Meeting, Atlanta, GA,
Jul. 2019, pp. 371–372.
[165] J. Wang, Z. Liu, R. Xie, and L. Ran, “Radar HRRP target recognition
based on dynamic learning with limited training data,” Remote Sens.,
vol. 13, no. 4, p. 750, 2021.
[166] M. Upadhyay, S. K. Murthy, and A. A. B. Raj, “Intelligent system for
real time detection and classification of aerial targets using CNN,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Intell. Comput. and Control Syst. (ICICCS),
Madurai, India, May 2021, pp. 1676–1681.
[167] S. Samaras, V. Magoulianitis, A. Dimou, D. Zarpalas, and P. Daras,
“UAV classification with deep learning using surveillance radar data,”
in Int. Conf. on Comput. Vision Syst. Springer, 2019, pp. 744–753.
[168] R. Fu, M. A. Al-Absi, K.-H. Kim, Y.-S. Lee, A. A. Al-Absi, and H.-J.
Lee, “Deep learning-based drone classification using radar cross section
signatures at mmWave frequencies,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 161 431–
161 444, 2021.
[169] S. Björklund, “Target detection and classification of small drones by
boosting on radar micro-doppler,” in Proc. IEEE Eur. Radar Conf.
(EuRAD), 2018, pp. 182–185.
[170] J. Bhatia, A. Dayal, A. Jha, S. K. Vishvakarma, S. Joshi, M. Srinivas,
P. K. Yalavarthy, A. Kumar, V. Lalitha, S. Koorapati et al., “Classifi-
cation of targets using statistical features from range FFT of mmWave
FMCW radars,” Electron., vol. 10, no. 16, p. 1965, 2021.
[171] S. Roychowdhury and D. Ghosh, “Machine learning based classifica-
tion of radar signatures of drones,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Range
Technol. (ICORT), 2021, pp. 1–5.

[172] P. Mandal, L. P. Roy, and S. K. Das, “Classification of flying object
based on radar data using hybrid convolutional neural network-memetic
algorithm,” Comput. and Elect. Eng., vol. 107, p. 108623, 2023.
[173] C. Bennett, M. Jahangir, F. Fioranelli, B. I. Ahmad, and J. L. Kernec,
“Use of symmetrical peak extraction in drone micro-Doppler classifi-
cation for staring radar,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf20),
Florence, Italy, Sep. 2020, pp. 1–6.
[174] X. Guo, C. S. Ng, E. de Jong, and A. B. Smits, “Micro-doppler based
mini-UAV detection with low-cost distributed radar in dense urban
environment,” in Proc. IEEE Eur. Radar Conf. (EuRAD), 2019, pp.
189–192.
[175] M. Ezuma, F. Erden, C. K. Anjinappa, O. Ozdemir, and I. Guvenc,
“Micro-UAV detection and classification from RF fingerprints using
machine learning techniques,” in Proc. IEEE Aerosp. Conf., Big Sky,
MT, Mar. 2019, pp. 1–13.
[176] K. Wu, J. A. Zhang, and Y. J. Guo, Joint communications and sensing:
From fundamentals to advanced techniques. John Wiley & Sons, 2022.
[177] F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. P. Petropulu, H. Griffiths, and L. Hanzo, “Joint
radar and communication design: Applications, state-of-the-art, and the
road ahead,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3834–3862,
2020.
[178] J. Zhao, X. Fu, Z. Yang, and F. Xu, “Radar-assisted UAV detection and
identification based on 5G in the internet of things,” Wireless Commun.
and Mobile Comput., 2019.
[179] X. Fang, W. Feng, Y. Chen, N. Ge, and Y. Zhang, “Joint communication
and sensing toward 6G: Models and Potential of Using MIMO,” IEEE
Internet of Things J., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 4093–4116, 2023.
[180] Z. Feng, Z. Fang, Z. Wei, X. Chen, Z. Quan, and D. Ji, “Joint radar
and communication: A survey,” China Commun., vol. 17, no. 1, pp.
1–27, 2020.
[181] A. Gameiro, D. Castanheira, J. Sanson, and P. P. Monteiro, “Research
challenges, trends and applications for future joint radar communica-
tions systems,” Wireless Pers. Commun., vol. 100, pp. 81–96, 2018.
[182] K. V. Mishra, M. Bhavani Shankar, V. Koivunen, B. Ottersten, and
S. A. Vorobyov, “Toward millimeter-wave joint radar communications:
A signal processing perspective,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 36,
no. 5, pp. 100–114, 2019.
[183] N. C. Luong, X. Lu, D. T. Hoang, D. Niyato, and D. I. Kim,
“Radio resource management in joint radar and communication: A
comprehensive survey,” IEEE Commun. Surveys & Tut., vol. 23, no. 2,
pp. 780–814, 2021.
[184] X. Wang, A. Hassanien, and M. G. Amin, “Dual-function MIMO radar
communications system design via sparse array optimization,” IEEE
Trans. Aerosp. and Electron. Syst., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1213–1226, 2019.
[185] I. Yattoun, T. Labia, A. Peden, G. Landrac, M. Ney, M. Resibois,
J. Bonnin, A. Baghdadi, N. Montavont, M. Fujise, and Y. Le Roux, “A
millimetre communication system for IVC,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
on ITS Telecommun., 2007, pp. 1–6.
[186] H. Zhang, L. Li, and K. Wu, “24GHz software-defined radar system
for automotive applications,” in Proc. IEEE Eur. Conf. on Wireless
Technol., 2007, pp. 138–141.
[187] L. Han and K. Wu, “Radar and radio data fusion platform for future
intelligent transportation system,” in Proc. IEEE Eur. Radar Conf.,
2010, pp. 65–68.
[188] S. Buzzi, C. D’Andrea, and M. Lops, “Using massive MIMO arrays
for joint communication and sensing,” in Proc. IEEE Asilomar Conf.
on Signals, Syst., and Comput., 2019, pp. 5–9.
[189] X. Chen, Z. Feng, Z. Wei, P. Zhang, and X. Yuan, “Code-division
OFDM Joint Communication and Sensing System for 6G Machine-
Type Communication,” IEEE Internet of Things J., vol. 8, no. 15, pp.
12 093–12 105, 2021.
[190] K. Wu, J. A. Zhang, X. Huang, and Y. J. Guo, “OTFS-Based Joint
Communication and Sensing for Future Industrial IoT,” IEEE Internet
of Things J., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1973–1989, 2023.
[191] B. Li, A. P. Petropulu, and W. Trappe, “Optimum co-design for
spectrum sharing between matrix completion based MIMO Radars and
a MIMO Communication System,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Process.,
vol. 64, no. 17, pp. 4562–4575, 2016.
[192] F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. Li, and T. Ratnarajah, “Robust MIMO beam-
forming for cellular and radar coexistence,” IEEE Wireless Commun.
Lett., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 374–377, 2017.
[193] R. Saruthirathanaworakun, J. M. Peha, and L. M. Correia, “Opportunis-
tic sharing between rotating radar and cellular,” IEEE J. on Sel. Areas
in Commun., vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 1900–1910, 2012.
[194] L. Wang, J. McGeehan, C. Williams, and A. Doufexi, “Radar spectrum
opportunities for cognitive communications transmission,” in Proc.
31
IEEE Int. Conf. Cogn. Radio Oriented Wireless Netw. and Commun.,
2008, pp. 1–6.
[195] A. R. Chiriyath, B. Paul, and D. W. Bliss, “Radar-communications
convergence: Coexistence, cooperation, and co-design,” IEEE Trans.
Cogn. Commun. and Netw., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2017.
[196] Y. Zhang, Q. Li, L. Huang, and J. Song, “Waveform design for joint
radar-communication system with multi-user based on MIMO radar,”
in 2017 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf), 2017, pp. 0415–0418.
[197] C. W. Rossler, E. Ertin, and R. L. Moses, “A software-defined radar
system for joint communication and sensing,” in Proc. IEEE Radar
Conf., 2011, pp. 1050–1055.
[198] Z. Lin and Z. Wang, “Interleaved OFDM Signals for MIMO Radar,”
IEEE Sensors J., vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 6294–6305, 2015.
[199] T. Huang, N. Shlezinger, X. Xu, Y. Liu, and Y. C. Eldar, “MAJoRCom:
a dual-function radar communication system using index modulation,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 68, pp. 3423–3438, 2020.
[200] K. Wu, J. A. Zhang, X. Huang, Y. J. Guo, and R. W. Heath, “Waveform
design and accurate channel estimation for frequency-hopping MIMO
radar-based communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 2,
pp. 1244–1258, 2021.
[201] P. Kumari, J. Choi, N. González-Prelcic, and R. W. Heath, “IEEE
802.11ad-based radar: An approach to joint vehicular communication-
radar system,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 3012–
3027, 2018.
[202] Y. L. Sit, C. Sturm, and T. Zwick, “Doppler estimation in an OFDM
joint radar and communication system,” in Proc. IEEE German Microw.
Conf., 2011, pp. 1–4.
[203] M. L. Rahman, P.-f. Cui, J. A. Zhang, X. Huang, Y. J. Guo, and
Z. Lu, “Joint communication and radar sensing in 5G mobile network
by compressive sensing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Commun. and Inf.
Technol. (ISCIT), 2019, pp. 599–604.
[204] F. Liu, L. Zhou, C. Masouros, A. Li, W. Luo, and A. Petropulu, “To-
ward dual-functional radar-communication systems: Optimal waveform
design,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 16, pp. 4264–
4279, 2018.
[205] M. L. Rahman, J. A. Zhang, X. Huang, Y. J. Guo, and R. W. Heath,
“Framework for a perceptive mobile network using joint communica-
tion and radar sensing,” IEEE Trans. on Aerosp. and Electron. Syst.,
vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1926–1941, 2020.
[206] A. M. Elbir, K. V. Mishra, and S. Chatzinotas, “Terahertz-Band Joint
Ultra-Massive MIMO radar-communications: Model-based and model-
free hybrid beamforming,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics in Signal Process.,
vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1468–1483, 2021.
[207] Y. Luo, J. A. Zhang, X. Huang, W. Ni, and J. Pan, “Optimization and
quantization of multibeam beamforming vector for joint communica-
tion and radio sensing,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 9, pp.
6468–6482, 2019.
[208] Y. Dan, J. Yi, X. Wan, Y. Rao, and B. Wang, “LTE-based passive
radar for drone detection and its experimental results,” The Journal of
Engineering, vol. 2019, no. 20, pp. 6910–6913, 2019.
[209] R. Maksymiuk, K. Abratkiewicz, P. Samczyński, and M. Płotka, “Rényi
entropy-based adaptive integration method for 5G-based passive radar
drone detection,” Remote Sens., vol. 14, no. 23, p. 6146, 2022.
[210] T. Martelli, F. Murgia, F. Colone, C. Bongioanni, and P. Lombardo,
“Detection and 3D localization of ultralight aircrafts and drones with a
WiFi-based passive radar,” in Int. Conf. on Radar Syst., 2017, pp. 1–6.
[211] H. Kuschel, J. Heckenbach, S. Muller, and R. Appel, “On the potentials
of passive, multistatic, low frequency radars to counter stealth and
detect low flying targets,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf., Rome, Italy,
May 2008, pp. 1–6.
[212] D. Poullin, “Countering illegal UAV flights : passive DVB radar
potentiality,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Symp. (IRS), Bonn, Germany,
Jun. 2018, pp. 1–10.
[213] R. S. A. Raja Abdullah, S. Alhaji Musa, N. E. Abdul Rashid, A. Sali,
A. A. Salah, and A. Ismail, “Passive forward-scattering radar using
digital video broadcasting satellite signal for drone detection,” Remote
Sensing, vol. 12, no. 18, p. 3075, 2020.
[214] B. Knoedler, C. Steffes, and W. Koch, “Detecting and tracking a small
UAV in GSM passive radar using track-before-detect,” in Proc. IEEE
Radar Conf. (RadarConf20), Florence, Italy, Sep. 2020, pp. 1–6.
[215] B. Knoedler, R. Zemmari, and W. Koch, “On the detection of small
UAV using a GSM passive coherent location system,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Radar Symp. (IRS), Krakow, Poland, May 2016, pp. 1–4.
[216] C. Steffes, B. Demissie, B. Knoedler, M. Broetje, M. Mandt, and
W. Koch, “Passive radar using mobile communication: A discussion of
use cases and feasibility,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf22),
New York City, NY, Mar. 2022, pp. 1–6.

[217] M. Sun, Z. Guo, M. Li, and R. Gerdes, “Passive drone localization
using LTE signals,” in Proc. ACM Conf. on Secur. and Privacy in
Wireless and Mobile Netw., 2022, pp. 295–297.
[218] A. Evers and J. A. Jackson, “Experimental passive SAR imaging
exploiting LTE, DVB, and DAB signals,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf.,
Cincinnati, OH, May 2014, pp. 0680–0685.
[219] Z. Geng, R. Xu, and H. Deng, “LTE-based multistatic passive radar
system for uav detection,” IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation, vol. 14,
no. 7, pp. 1088–1097, 2020.
[220] R. Maksymiuk, M. Płotka, K. Abratkiewicz, and P. Samczyński, “5G
network-based passive radar for drone detection,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Radar Symp. (IRS), 2023, pp. 1–10.
[221] P. Samczyński, K. Abratkiewicz, M. Płotka, T. P. Zieliński, J. Wszołek,
S. Hausman, P. Korbel, and A. Ksieżyk, “5G network-based passive
radar,” IEEE Trans. on Geosci. and Remote Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–9,
2022.
[222] F. Colone, P. Falcone, C. Bongioanni, and P. Lombardo, “WiFi-
based passive bistatic radar: Data processing schemes and experimental
results,” IEEE Trans. on Aerosp. and Electron. Syst., vol. 48, no. 2, pp.
1061–1079, 2012.
[223] A. Buonanno, M. D’Urso, and L. Palmieri, “WiFi-based passive bistatic
radar by using moving target indicator and least square adaptive
filtering,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Phased Array Syst. and Technol.,
2013, pp. 174–179.
[224] C. Schüpbach, C. Patry, F. Maasdorp, U. Böniger, and P. Wellig,
“Micro-UAV detection using DAB-based passive radar,” in Proc. IEEE
Radar Conf. (RadarConf), Seattle, WA, May 2017, pp. 1037–1040.
[225] H. Kuschel, J. Heckenbach, D. O’Hagan, and M. Ummenhofer, “A
hybrid multi-frequency passive radar concept for medium range air
surveillance,” in Proc. microw., radar and remote sens. symp., Kiev,
Ukraine, Aug. 2011, pp. 275–279.
[226] M. Daun and W. Koch, “Multistatic target tracking for non-cooperative
illumination by DAB/DVB-T,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf., Rome, Italy,
May 2008, pp. 1–6.
[227] C. F. Handel and R. M. Narayanan, “FM radio passive multistatic radar
using data fusion,” in Radar Sensor Technol. XXIII, vol. 11003. SPIE,
2019, p. 1100303.
[228] H. Griffiths and C. Baker, “Passive coherent location radar systems. part
1: Performance prediction,” Proc. IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation,
vol. 152, no. 3, pp. 153–159, 2005.
[229] P. Karpovich, S. Kareneuski, and T. P. Zieliński, “Practical results of
drone detection by passive coherent DVB-T2 radar,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Radar Symp. (IRS), Warsaw, Poland, Oct. 2020, pp. 77–81.
[230] D. Mata-Moya, N. Rey-Maestre, P.-J. Gómez-del Hoyo, J. Rosado-
Sanz, and M.-P. Jarabo-Amores, “4D passive radar for drone detection
and tracking,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Symp. (IRS), Berlin, Germany,
Jun. 2021, pp. 1–10.
[231] G. Fang, J. Yi, X. Wan, Y. Liu, and H. Ke, “Experimental res. of
multistatic passive radar with a single antenna for drone detection,”
IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 33 542–33 551, 2018.
[232] T. Martelli, F. Filippini, and F. Colone, “Tackling the different target
dynamics issues in counter drone operations using passive radar,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Conf. (RADAR), Washington, DC, Apr. 2020,
pp. 512–517.
[233] S. A. Musa, R. Abdullah, A. Sali, A. Ismail, N. E. A. Rashid, I. P.
Ibrahim, and A. A. Salah, “A review of copter drone detection using
radar systems,” Def. S&T Tech. Bull, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 16–38, 2019.
[234] M. Ummenhofer, L. C. Lavau, D. Cristallini, and D. O’Hagan,
“UAV Micro-Doppler Signature Analysis Using DVB-S Based Passive
Radar,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Radar Conf. (RADAR), Washington, DC,
Apr. 2020, pp. 1007–1012.
[235] M. Ezuma, F. Erden, C. Kumar Anjinappa, O. Ozdemir, and I. Guvenc,
“Detection and classification of UAVs Using RF Fingerprints in the
Presence of Wi-Fi and bluetooth interference,” IEEE Open J. of the
Commun. Soc., vol. 1, pp. 60–76, 2020.
[236] C. Swinney and J. Woods, “The effect of real-world interference
on CNN feature extraction and machine learning classification of
unmanned aerial systems,” MDPI Aerospace, vol. 8, no. 7, p. 179,
2021.
[237] W. Nie, Z.-C. Han, Y. Li, W. He, L.-B. Xie, X.-L. Yang, and M. Zhou,
“UAV detection and localization based on multi-dimensional signal
features,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 5150–5162, 2022.
[238] U. Bhattacherjee, E. Ozturk, O. Ozdemir, I. Guvenc, M. L. Sichitiu, and
H. Dai, “Experimental study of outdoor UAV localization and tracking
using passive RF sensing,” in Proc. of ACM Workshop Wireless Netw.
Testbeds, Exp. eval. & characterization, 2022, pp. 31–38.
32
[239] P. Nguyen, M. Ravindranatha, A. Nguyen, R. Han, and T. Vu, “Inves-
tigating cost-effective RF-based detection of drones,” in Proc. of the
workshop on micro aerial veh. netw., syst., and appl. for civilian use,
2016, pp. 17–22.
[240] I. Bisio, C. Garibotto, F. Lavagetto, A. Sciarrone, and S. Zappatore,
“Unauthorized amateur UAV Detection Based on WiFi statistical
fingerprint analysis,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 106–
111, 2018.
[241] W. Nie, Z.-C. Han, M. Zhou, L.-B. Xie, and Q. Jiang, “UAV Detection
and Identification Based on WiFi Signal and RF Fingerprint,” IEEE
Sensors J., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 13 540–13 550, 2021.
[242] M. F. Al-Sa’d, A. Al-Ali, A. Mohamed, T. Khattab, and A. Erbad,
“RF-based drone detection and identification using deep learning
approaches: An initiative towards a large open source drone database,”
Future Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 100, pp. 86–97, 2019.
[243] S. Al-Emadi and F. Al-Senaid, “Drone detection approach based on
radio-frequency using convolutional neural network,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. on Inform., IoT, and Enabling Technol. (ICIoT), 2020, pp.
29–34.
[244] R. Akter, V.-S. Doan, J.-M. Lee, and D.-S. Kim, “CNN-SSDI: Convo-
lution neural network inspired surveillance system for UAVs detection
and identification,” Comput. Netw., vol. 201, p. 108519, 2021.
[245] X. Liang, Y. Jiang, and T. A. Gulliver, “An improved sensing method
using radio frequency detection,” Physical Commun., vol. 36, p.
100763, 2019.
[246] S. Mohanti, N. Soltani, K. Sankhe, D. Jaisinghani, M. Di Felice,
and K. Chowdhury, “AirID: Injecting a Custom RF Fingerprint for
Enhanced UAV Identification using Deep Learning,” in Proc. IEEE
Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2020, pp. 1–6.
[247] N. Soltani, G. Reus-Muns, B. Salehi, J. Dy, S. Ioannidis, and
K. Chowdhury, “RF fingerprinting unmanned aerial vehicles with non-
standard transmitter waveforms,” IEEE Trans. on Veh. Technol., vol. 69,
no. 12, pp. 15 518–15 531, 2020.
[248] O. O. Medaiyese, M. Ezuma, A. P. Lauf, and I. Guvenc, “Wavelet trans-
form analytics for RF-based UAV detection and identification system
using machine learning,” Pervasive and Mobile Comput., vol. 82, p.
101569, 2022.
[249] A. Alipour-Fanid, M. Dabaghchian, N. Wang, P. Wang, L. Zhao, and
K. Zeng, “Machine learning-based delay-aware UAV Detection and
Operation Mode Identification Over Encrypted Wi-Fi traffic,” IEEE
Trans. on Inf. Forensics and Secur., vol. 15, pp. 2346–2360, 2020.
[250] A. Gumaei, M. Al-Rakhami, M. M. Hassan, P. Pace, G. Alai, K. Lin,
and G. Fortino, “Deep learning and blockchain with edge computing
for 5G-Enabled drone identification and flight mode detection,” IEEE
Netw., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 94–100, 2021.
[251] I. Bisio, C. Garibotto, F. Lavagetto, A. Sciarrone, and Zappatore, “Blind
detection: Advanced techniques for WiFi-based drone surveillance,”
IEEE Trans. on Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 938–946, 2019.
[252] Open Drone ID. Welcome to opendroneid.org. Accessed on: Oct. 29,
2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.opendroneid.org/
[253] S. J. Maeng, J. Park, and I. Guvenc, “Analysis of UAV radar and
communication network coexistence with different multiple access
protocols,” IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, 2023.
[254] W. Khawaja, E. Ozturk, and I. Guvenc, “Doors in the sky: Detection,
localization and classification of aerial vehicles using laser mesh,” Int.
Telecom. Union J. Future and Evolving Technol., vol. 2, issue 2, pp.
139-156, 2021.
[255] S. Lu, Z. Meng, J. Huang, M. Yi, and Z. Wang, “Study on quantum
radar detection probability based on flying-wing stealth aircraft,” Sen-
sors, vol. 22, no. 16, p. 5944, 2022.
[256] F. Wang and H. Li, “Joint waveform and receiver design for co-channel
hybrid active-passive sensing with timing uncertainty,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 68, pp. 466–477, 2020.
[257] G. Wang, C. Gu, T. Inoue, and C. Li, “A hybrid FMCW-interferometry
radar for indoor precise positioning and versatile life activity monitor-
ing,” IEEE Trans. on Microw. Theory and Technol., vol. 62, no. 11,
pp. 2812–2822, 2014.
[258] M. Strohmeier, V. Lenders, and I. Martinovic, “On the security of the
automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast protocol,” IEEE Commun.
Surv. & Tut., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1066–1087, 2015.
[259] M. McNabb. Are You Ready for Remote ID? FAA Guidelines
and Resources. Accessed on: Nov. 04, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://dronelife.com/2023/07/16/are-you-ready-for-remote-id-faa-pub
lishes-guidelines/#:∼:text=Remote%20ID
[260] Federal Aviation Administration. Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic
Management (UTM). Accessed on: Nov. 04, 2023. [Online]. Available:
 33

https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced operations/traffic management#:∼:

text=UTM
[261] L. Tomaszewski and R. Kołakowski, “Advanced air mobility and
evolution of mobile networks,” Drones, vol. 7, no. 9, p. 556, 2023.
[262] V. Caon. What is a drone corridor? Accessed on: Nov. 04, 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/logistics/what-i
s-a-drone-corridors/
[263] A.-V. Emilien, C. Thomas, and H. Thomas, “UAV & satellite synergies
for optical remote sensing applications: A literature review,” Sci. of
Remote Sens., p. 100019, 2021.
[264] The European Space Agency. Satellites to spot drones and guide
cyclists. Accessed on: Dec. 13, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ww
w.esa.int/Applications/Telecommunications Integrated Applications/
Technology Transfer/Satellites to spot drones and guide cyclists