Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Electronic Warfare Signal Generation: Technologies and Methods

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 20

A P P L IC AT ION NO T E

Electronic Warfare
Signal Generation:
Technologies and Methods
Introduction
Productive and efficient engineering of electronic warfare (EW) systems requires the generation
of test signals that accurately and repeatably represent the EW environment. Simulation of
multi-emitter environments is vital to ensure realistic testing.

Simulation for these multi-emitter environments traditionally encompasses large, complex,


custom systems during the system qualification and verification stage. These systems are
usually not widely available to EW design engineers as R&D test equipment. EW designers
working on optimization and pre-qualification are at a disadvantage in comparison to wireless
engineers performing similar tasks. EW engineers often discover the nature and magnitude
of performance problems later in the design phase — leading to delays, design rework, and
solutions that are not optimal.

This application note summarizes the technological approaches for EW signal and environment
simulation and the latest progress in flexible, high-fidelity solutions. For example, recent
innovations in digital-to-analog converters (DACs) have brought direct digital synthesis (DDS)
signal generation into EW applications through advances in both bandwidth and signal quality.
This paper also covers DDS solutions and other innovations in agile frequency and power
control so you can improve your design phase EW engineering accuracy and productivity.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 2


Realism and Fidelity in Multi-Emitter Environments
Validation and verification of EW systems are heavily dependent on testing with realistic signal
environments. Adding high-fidelity emitters for greater signal density creates a realistic EW test
environment. In addition, emitter fidelity and density, platform motion, emitter scan patterns,
receiver antenna models, the direction of arrival, and multipath and atmospheric models
enhance the ability to test EW systems under realistic conditions. The designs for modern EW
systems can identify emitters using precise direction finding and pulse parameterization in
dense environments of 8 to 10 million pulses per second.

The cost of test is as important as test realism, as the relationship between cost and test
fidelity is exponential. As test equipment becomes more cost-effective and capable, more
EW testing can be performed on the ground — in a lab or chamber — rather than in flight.
Even though flight testing can add test capability, it does so at a high cost. It is typically done
later in the program lifecycle, adding risk and further expense to the program through missed
deadlines if the system under test (SUT) fails. It is far better to test early in a lab environment
with as much realism as possible, where tests are easily repeated to identify iteratively and to
resolve issues.

Challenges of Simulating Multi-Emitter Environments


The modern spectral environment contains thousands of emitters — radios, wireless devices,
and tens to hundreds of radar threats — producing millions of radar pulses per second amidst
background signals and noise. Figure 1 shows a general overview of the threat frequency
spectrum.
Pulse density (log)

Acquisition, GCI

Fire control
Early warning

VHF UHF L S C X Ku K Ka

A B C D E F G H I J K

Figure 1. A general representation of the threat density vs. frequency band in a typical operational environment. The
full RF/microwave environment would be a combination of the threat and commercial wireless environments.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 3


Simulating this environment is a significant challenge — especially in the design phase, when
design flexibility and productivity are at their greatest. The situation is quite different from the
typical wireless design task, where a single signal generator can produce the required signal,
augmented by a second signal generator to add interference or noise.

In EW design, the multiplicity and density of the environment — and often the bandwidth —
make it impractical to use a single source or a small number of sources to simulate a single
emitter or a small number of emitters. Cost, space, and complexity considerations rule out
these approaches.

The only practical solution is to simulate many emitters with a single source, and to employ
multiple sources — each typically simulating many emitters — when required to produce the
needed signal density or to simulate specific phenomena such as angle-of-arrival (AoA).

The ability to simulate multiple emitters at multiple frequencies depends on the following: pulse
repetition frequency; duty cycle; number of emitters; and the capability of the source to switch
between frequency, amplitude, and modulation quickly.

A limiting factor in the use of a single signal generator to simulate multiple emitters is pulse
collisions. Figures 2 and 3 show the number of pulse collisions expected for the cases of low
and high pulse repetition frequency (PRF).

Low PRF emitter density vs. pulse collision percentage


100
3000 emitters
90
Pulse collision perccentage

1000 emitters
80
70
512 emitters
60
50
40 256 emitters
30
20 128 emitters

10
36 emitters
0
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Millions of pulses per second

Figure 2. As the number of emitters grows, the number of pulse collisions grows even when all emitters use low PRF.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 4


High PRF emitter density vs. pulse collision percentage
100
4 emitters
90
3 emitters
Pulse collision percentage

80
70
60 2 emitters

50
40
30
20
10
1 emitter
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Millions of pulses per second

Figure 3. The percentage of pulse collisions climbs very quickly as high-PRF emitters are added to a simulation.

A source’s agility is a factor in its ability to simulate multiple emitters. Source frequency, phase,
and amplitude settling time (whichever is greater) is the transition time between playing one
pulse descriptor word (PDW) and the next.

Figure 4 shows that the total pulse density for a single source is limited by the sum of the
transition time, the width of the transmitted pulses, and the lockout period parameter. The
lockout period must be as short as possible, so the source settling times are as brief.

Pulse width
Frequency switching time

Phase switching time

Amplitude switching time

Transition time

Lockout period

PDW PDW Time


sent playback

Figure 4. The ability to simulate multiple emitters depends on the emitter parameters like PRF and pulse width. It also
includes the frequency, phase, and amplitude switching speeds and settling times of the signal source used to synthesize
the emitters. If the source is switching, it cannot play a pulse. If it is playing a pulse, it cannot switch. The source is
unavailable to simulate a different threat during the lockout period.

To simulate high pulse density and the possibility of some overlapping pulses, it is often
necessary to combine multiple sources. As more sources are added to the test configuration,
pulse density should scale quickly and seamlessly, reaching the desired tradeoff of satisfactory
simulation realism and cost.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 5


Improvements Simplify Integration and Reduce Cost
Simulating more threats to create higher pulse density requires more parallel simulation
channels — even if the simulation channel can switch frequency, phase, and amplitude quickly.
This is because pulses begin to collide in the time domain as the number of emitters, their PRFs,
and their duty cycles grow larger.1 Pulses that overlap in the time domain must be played out of
parallel generators or selectively dropped based on a PDW priority scheme. Unfortunately, the
increased realism of a higher-density environment comes at a substantially higher system cost,
as shown in Figure 5.
Cost

Value

Legacy simulation
technology Modern
simulation technology

Fidelity
Figure 5. Simulation fidelity and cost increase exponentially. System integrators and evaluators must determine the level
of cost versus fidelity to ensure system performance. New simulation technologies enable more simulation realism and
fidelity at a lower cost.

In the past, simulations have generally been created with a separate component for each
emulation function, such as signal generation, modulation/pulsing, attenuation or amplification,
and phase shift. The same PDW would be sent to each functional component to provide output
on a pulse-to-pulse basis. For instance, a synthesizer would generate the output frequency,
while a separate modulator would create pulsed modulation or AM/FM/PM modulation.
Amplifiers and attenuators would adjust the signal to the desired output power level. Figure 6 is
an example of the system’s topology.

PDWs Control parameters

Pulse RF Amplifier/ EW simulation


generator generator attenuator output

Synchronization

Figure 6. In the traditional approach, PDW control parameters are sent in parallel to multiple functional
elements, on a pulse-to-pulse basis, to generate and modify the desired signal. This approach results in a
complex system, demanding precise synchronization.

1.  Philip Kazserman, “Frequency of pulse coincidence given in n radars of different pulse widths and PRFs,”
IEEE Trans. Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. AES-6, p. 657-662, September 1970.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 6


Because multiple functional components are required to produce each output channel, time
synchronization is a significant configuration and operational challenge. A wide variety of
settling times and latencies must be fully characterized to optimize pulse density by minimizing
lockout periods.

This approach can be scaled directly to create multiple coordinated channels, as shown in
Figure 7. However, systems configured in this way require a large footprint — occupying more
rack space — and cost escalates quickly.

Figure 7. A signal generation approach using separate functional elements can be scaled up to increase pulse
density and generate a more realistic environment. The cost and space requirements scale up rapidly as well.1

The controller in Figure 7 would route PDWs to channels based on emitter parameters, such
as frequency, amplitude, and pulse repetition frequency, and the availability of each channel to
implement the PDW. Because a channel cannot execute the parameters of two different PDWs at
the same time, one could be shunted to a backup channel or dropped according to its priority.

EW receivers must be able to handle 8 to 10 million pulses per second, where most of the pulse
density occurs at X-band. EW receivers must be able to handle pulses arriving at the same
time at different frequencies from different angles. Creating pulses that are coincident with one
another in the time domain should be a goal of simulation to increase simulation realism.

Though Figure 7 describes a very capable system, the system elements are not highly integrated.
Recent developments in analog and digital signal generation technologies
are enabling a higher degree of integration and solutions which are more cost- and space-
efficient, as described in the section, “Increasing Integration in EW Test Solutions.”

There are several methods of controlling simulations, depending on test objectives. Figure
7 shows systems with a traditional, distributed architecture. The synchronization of an agile
local oscillator (LO) with functions such as pulse modulation, frequency/phase modulation,
and amplitude control is a considerable challenge. In an integrated EW test solution such
as the UXG, this synchronization is automatic, provided by the test equipment itself. By
simplifying hardware and system complexity, this integrated approach promises to improve both
performance and reliability.

1.  Reproduced by permission from David Adamy, EW 101: A First Course in Electronic Warfare, Norwood,
MA: Artech House, Inc., 2001. © 2001 by Artech House, Inc.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 7


Control of Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing
Depending on the integration of simulation elements and the simulation length, scenarios can be
played from list memory or streamed over a digital interface such as LAN or low-voltage differential
signaling (LVDS). List mode plays PDWs from list memory for shorter scenario lengths with some ability
to trigger between lists for an adaptive (closed-loop) simulation in response to the SUT.

For example, there is often a need to switch between one simulated threat mode to another in response
to identification and jamming by the SUT. For long scenario lengths with fast control over scenario
changes, PDWs can be streamed over the LAN to the signal generation system operating in an agile
controller mode. In this case, simulation software generates batches of PDWs according to simulation
kinematic granularity and streams them ahead of their desired playtime.

The goals are to stress the SUT with increasing pulse density, depending on the number of simulation
channels available and the parameters of the threats to be simulated. As pulse density increases,
PDWs can be dropped according to a priority scheme as they increasingly collide in the time domain,
and there are insufficient signal generation channels to play them.

Creating AoA
In addition to creating emitters with the desired fidelity and density, it is also important to match
the geometry and kinematics of EW scenarios. This is because the AoA of a radar threat to the
EW system changes slowly compared to other parameters, such as center frequency and pulse
repetition frequency.

EW systems measure AoA and estimate distance using amplitude comparison, differential Doppler,
interferometry (phase difference), and time difference of arrival (TDoA). Precise AoA measurements
enable precise localization of radar threats. New stand-off jamming systems use active electronically
scanned arrays capable of precise beamforming to minimize loss of jamming power due to beam
spreading toward a threat. EW receivers with better AoA capability reduce the need for pulse
de-interleaving and sorting. Consequently, AoA is an increasingly important test requirement.

Techniques for creating AoA


In the past, AoA was created with a combination of signal sources and analog phase shifters,
attenuators, and gain blocks in the cable path to the SUT. Analog elements in the cable path took up
space, had limited resolution, and were expensive.

As an alternative, and depending on their architecture, sources can be linked together to create
phase-coherent output, allowing for exceptional control over creating phase fronts to the SUT.
Similarly, amplitude control at the source can be used to create appropriate amplitude differences at
SUT receive channels.

The ability to control AoA to meet modern test requirements depends on the architecture of
the source. At a minimum, it should be possible to lock the LOs of multiple sources together so
that they all share the same phase. Often, calibration is required to align the phase and timing
between sources.

Creating small, accurate, and repeatable differences in phase or frequency between channels is
the next challenge. Sources based on a direct digital synthesis (DDS) architecture allow AoA to be
controlled digitally in a numerically controlled oscillator. Phase alignment in a DDS source is then
a matter of sharing reference clocks. Calibrations to provide accuracy and repeatability can be
uploaded to a table to be applied in real time.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 8


Overview of Source Technologies for EW Test
The characteristics and tradeoffs of EW signal generation systems are primarily determined by
the core synthesizer and oscillator technologies used. This section summarizes the three key
technologies currently available:

–– Direct analog synthesis (DAS)


–– Phase-locked loop or indirect analog synthesis (PLL, frequently fractional-N)
–– Direct digital synthesis

General source requirements


Signal sources used to test EW systems must be broadband. Traditionally, a frequency range
of 0.5 to 18 GHz was required. Frequency requirements have expanded dramatically in recent
years, now beginning near DC and extending as high as 40 GHz. They allow systems to simulate
an early warning, fire control, and missile-seeking radars from a single output channel.

In addition to wide frequency coverage, sources for EW test must have fast frequency, phase,
and amplitude switching speeds to simulate different radars operating in different modes in
various frequency bands.

PLLs and fractional-N synthesis


Indirect synthesis
Most general-purpose sources today are PLL-based, where a broadband oscillator such as a
voltage-controlled or YIG-tuned oscillator is locked to a stable reference in a phase-locked
loop (PLL). The PLL improves signal quality by reducing phase noise and spurious signals in the
output. PLL-based sources have been configured with a combination of sum and step loops or
a single loop with a fine fractional division capability. These fractional-N PLLs offer excellent
signal quality and fine frequency resolution in a cost-effective single-loop configuration,
making them an excellent choice for general-purpose signal sources.

The required control loop filtering in PLLs results in a significant settling or loop response
time. This looping limits the ability of the synthesizer to switch frequency quickly. Due to their
comparatively high transition time, these sources are limited in their ability to simulate multiple
radar threats out of a single channel, even if they have the necessary broadband frequency
coverage and frequency resolution. They also lack phase-repeatable switching capability.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 9


Direct analog synthesis
A direct analog synthesizer typically contains several stable frequency references multiplied
or divided from the same crystal oscillator reference. These frequency references (and their
harmonics) can be switched in and out of the signal path and multiplied, divided, added, and
subtracted to provide fine frequency resolution quickly. The frequencies of these references are
chosen to reduce the number of multiplication stages required, such that phase noise increases
only moderately as the frequency is increased. The division to lower frequencies reduces the
phase noise.

Since the switches and arithmetic operators used in the DAS approach operate very quickly
and do not need loop filtering, these synthesizers have very high-frequency agility. They are a
typical architecture for traditional EW test solutions.

However, DAS technology has several drawbacks. First, numerous stages are required to
achieve the desired frequency resolution. Switching parallel and series multiplication, division,
and mixing stages requires more hardware than PLLs and reduces reliability. Second, circuit
noise from each stage is cascaded, and phase noise is multiplied through the stages.
Finally, each stage adds components that increase size, weight, and cost.

On the positive side for EW applications, DAS has the potential for limited phase-repeatable
frequency switching. All frequencies are usually derived from the same reference, but divider
ambiguities generally preclude full phase-coherent switching.

DDS now suitable for EW applications


The DDS approach, based on DAC circuits, is a natural fit for the needs of EW signal simulation.
However, until recently, DACs were not available with the required combination of fast sample
rates and high purity.

Fast sample rates are needed to produce outputs with very wide bandwidth, so that a minimum
of multiplying stages can be used to create the desired output frequencies. The use of either
many multiplying stages or a DAC of insufficient purity would limit the effective spurious-free
dynamic range (SFDR) of the EW synthesizer.

In concept, a DDS is one of the simplest types of signal generators. In a frequency-tunable


DDS, data from a numerically controlled oscillator is converted to analog form by a DAC and
lowpass filtered to remove image frequencies and harmonics. A block diagram of the key
elements of a DDS is shown in Figure 8.

Frequency Numerically Reconstruction


Analog
control controlled DAC lowpass
output
register oscillator filter

Reference oscillator Fclk


Figure 8. Principal functional blocks of a direct digital synthesizer

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 10


The numerically controlled oscillator itself consists of two elements: a phase accumulator (PA)
and a phase-to-amplitude converter (PAC), as shown in Figure 9. In modern DDS designs, these
are often implemented using field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or dedicated integrated
circuits.

Phase Phase-to-
∆Φ Phase Φ(t)
Frequency increment amplitude To DAC
accumulator
calculator converter

Figure 9. Functional process of a numerically controlled oscillator

In frequency synthesis, a frequency control word — a delta phase — is sent to the phase
accumulator along with the digital reference clock. For each clock cycle, this delta phase is
added in the phase accumulator with high precision. The phase value generated by the
accumulator is then converted to a sinusoidal amplitude in the phase-to-amplitude converter.
The digital sine wave is sent to the DAC and output at a frequency given by the DDS tuning
equation, where N is the number of bits in the frequency control word:1

∆phase
fout = fclk
2N

This equation demonstrates that greater DAC clock frequencies achieve higher output
frequencies while the resolution is controlled by the number of bits in the frequency control
word and phase accumulators. The numerically controlled oscillator behaves as a divider to the
reference clock to provide frequencies with high resolution according to the bit depths of the
phase register and frequency control word. Note that transitions to new frequencies happen in
one clock cycle.

1.  David Buchanan, “Choosing DACs for direct digital synthesis,” Analog Devices Application Note 237,
Available:(http://application-notes.digchip.com/013/13-14876.pdf)

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 11


Advantages of DDS
The Keysight UXG agile signal generator uses DDS technology made possible by a Keysight-
proprietary DAC to generate multi-emitter simulations. DDS has several advantages over other
synthesis technologies for EW applications:

–– Digital control of extremely fine frequency and phase tuning increments within a single
clock cycle. In the Keysight UXG agile signal generator, the frequency resolution is one
millihertz and phase resolution is sub-degree. Fractional-N techniques can provide
microhertz resolution, but frequency changes are much slower due to PLL filtering. DAS
techniques provide rapid frequency switching, but at a cost in frequency resolution.
–– Get fast frequency hopping with phase continuity and phase repeatability to simulate
multiple pulse-Doppler radars at different frequencies while maintaining their original
phase. This combination of phase control and hopping speed is unique to the Keysight UXG
agile signal generator.

DAS techniques offer hop speed and frequency/phase repeatability only under limited
conditions. Modulation is created in the digital domain, providing numerical precision and
repeatability.

There are other advantages to using DDS that are of interest to the EW engineer. Many DDSs
employ a digital modulator for amplitude, frequency, and phase modulation for the creation of
digitally modulated signals in the numerically controlled oscillator. Linear frequency modulated
(LFM) chirps and Barker codes can also be directly synthesized using the numerically controlled
oscillator. Chirp bandwidth depends on the bandwidth of the bandpass filters after each
multiplication stage and whether the signal is crossing a band.

Microwave source architecture using DDS


Modern EW applications require frequency coverage to 40 GHz, along with high agility and high
purity. Digital signal processing technologies for numeric signal creation have been adequate
for some time, but wideband DAC performance has been inadequate for these applications.
Available DACs with wide bandwidth and a high clock rate are not sufficiently pure, while DACs
with good signal purity and high bit depth have been limited to lower frequency clocks and
narrower bandwidth.

Recent DAC innovations from Keysight provide an example of a DAC and DDS suitable for
EW test applications. The DAC has been designed for RF applications, with a combination
of high bit depth and excellent purity, including spurious-free dynamic range and low
phase noise. The high sample rate of the DAC supports a wide bandwidth DDS that allows
microwave frequencies to be synthesized with a low number of multiplication stages. Limiting
multiplication stages restricts the phase noise and spurious signals present in microwave
output.

EW testing also requires precise signal amplitudes over a wide range of power levels. These
power levels must be switched as fast as frequencies are changed, without signal distortion
from attenuator settling. As with the DAC, these demands have led Keysight to develop a new
series of field effect transistor (FET) switches to implement a solid-state attenuator with high
agility, low distortion, and an amplitude range of 120 dB. The agile amplitude range of the
attenuator is 80 dB anywhere in the 0 dBm to -120 dBm output range.

The architecture of a true DDS-based, agile microwave signal generator utilizing developments
in DAC and FET switching technology is shown in Figure 10.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 12


Lowpass
filter bands

Freq
Amplifier
doublers
Numerically Digital to Electronic & Analog out
controlled analog x2n mechanical 0.01-40 GHz
oscillator converter attenuators

Frequency Pulse Amplitude


Phase Pulse time
LFM Pulse width
Pulse parameter list & external digital PDW interface
Figure 10. High-level process flow of a DDS-based agile signal generator covering 0.01 to 40 GHz

Signal generation begins with a DDS optimized for very low spurious output, as spurs increase
for each doubling stage. A sequence of doubler circuits is then used as needed to create signals
up to 40 GHz. Each multiplication stage employs bandpass filters to remove unwanted signals
from the multipliers.

The FET-based agile attenuator is then used to produce the desired output levels. This
attenuator provides fast settling, matched to frequency switching speed so that the source can
implement open loop power control with high accuracy and no loss in switching time.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 13


Advanced Threat Simulation
The DDS architecture provides many advantages for EW threat simulation. As radar threats
grow more advanced and sophisticated, threat simulation systems must produce high-fidelity
reproductions of these signals. These reproductions include shaped pulses with varying rise
and fall times, non-linear chirps, or custom modulation. Implementing these effects with
traditional analog building blocks, such as pulse and I/Q modulators, can prove challenging.
Fortunately, modern digital I/Q baseband systems can accurately generate these complex
waveforms while minimizing distortion and spurious signals.

You cannot create some threat scenarios, such as AoA, with a single-channel source. Those
scenarios depend on properly synchronizing the outputs of two or more sources. By precisely
controlling the amplitude, phase, and time delay of each source output, you can simulate the
direction of a radar wavefront as it reaches the multiple antennas of an EW SUT. Accomplishing
this feat with multiple signal generators scales up the costs, often resulting in redundant
hardware — adding size, weight, power consumption, and complexity.

The Keysight UXG agile vector adapter works in conjunction with the UXG agile signal
generator. Figure 11 shows the block diagram.

UXG agile signal generator

6 GHz reference
8 - 18 GHz LO

1.8 GHz
1.6 GHz BW

.05 - 40 GHz

PDWs
Proprietary DAC

UXG agile vector adapter

Figure 11. High level block diagram of the UXG agile vector adapter

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 14


The vector adapter utilizes the 6 GHz reference and agile LO signals from the DDS source to
avoid duplication of this hardware while adding a digital I/Q baseband system, upconverter, and
electronic attenuator. The baseband generator memory stores the complex pulse waveforms
represented by I/Q data points. This digital information feeds the DDS engine, where it is
converted to an IF signal and upconverted to an RF frequency. An electronic attenuator
provides agile amplitude scaling of the signal.

Minimizing Distortion
Traditional analog I/Q baseband systems must be carefully tuned to minimize signal distortion
caused by phenomenon such as IQ gain imbalance (where the gain in the I and Q channels
is slightly different) and IQ skew (where the I and Q paths are not precisely in quadrature).
Figure 12 (left image) shows how these imperfections create in-band distortion. Because these
distortion products occur within the signal bandwidth, they cannot be filtered out.

A digital baseband architecture mathematically shifts the I and Q channels by 90 degrees and
digitally sums them before conversion to an analog IF signal. This technique greatly reduces
the amount of in-band distortion. Figure 12 (right image) shows how this technique provides a
higher fidelity signal.

Figure 12. A comparison of analog and digital baseband architectures

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 15


Agile amplitude signal control is crucial for realistic threat simulation, where multiple emitters
may be at different distances and transmit at different power levels. Mechanical attenuators
cannot switch quickly enough to keep up with scenarios that potentially generate millions of
pulses per second. To provide agile amplitude control, you can use the baseband generator’s
digital-to-analog converter (DAC) to scale the signal quickly. Depending on the vertical bits of
resolution available in the DAC, this method can provide 40 to 55 dB of agile amplitude range.

This level of performance may impose severe limits on the threat scenario, which could require
a higher, agile dynamic range. Moreover, the DAC technique for amplitude control cannot
attenuate any spurious signals created further down the signal chain. The EW receiver under
test must perform additional signal processing to determine if the detected signal is a genuine
threat signal or a spurious one that can be ignored.

An agile electronic attenuator provides a better way to scale the threat signal. If we position the
electronic attenuator at the end of the signal chain, just before the RF output, it will attenuate
the threat signal and spur equally, as shown in Figure 13. Using an electronic attenuator in
combination with DAC bits can provide up to 120 dB of agile amplitude control.

Threat signal power reduction using DAC bits alone does not decrease
corresponding spur level (the absolute level remains constant)

The agile attenuator attenuates the threat signal along with its Spurs
and Harmonics by the same amount

Figure 13. Comparison of control techniques for threat signal amplitude

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 16


Configuring the Threat Simulation System
Depending on the SUT characteristics and the complexity of the desired threat scenario, you
may need to configure the threat simulation system to support the differing channel and port
counts. A channel refers to the ability to independently tune the threat signal to the desired
frequency, while a port refers to the actual output port of the RF signal.

If the scenario requires large numbers of pulses at multiple frequencies with minimal dropped
pulses, you might select the 4-channel, 1-port configurations in Figure 14. The outputs of each
analog or vector source are combined to a single RF port.

Analog Vector

Figure 14. 4-channel, 1-port configurations

If the threat scenario calls for AoA measurements, you need a different configuration. Figure 15
shows two different 1-channel, 4-port test configurations. All four sources are tuned to the
same frequency. But the amplitude, phase, and time delay of each RF output are individually
controlled to simulate the direction of the threat.

Analog Vector

Figure 15. 1-channel, 4-port configurations

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 17


More complex scenarios may demand more extensive configurations, such as the 3-channel,
4-port setup in Figure 16. The three channels of this configuration provide high pulse density
with pulse-on-pulse capability, as well as multiple ports for AoA testing.

Figure 16. Configuration for 3-channel, 4-port

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 18


Increasing Integration in EW Test Solutions
A general trend in EW simulation solutions is to absorb more simulation elements into the
microwave signal source. For example, the Keysight UXG agile signal generator combines the
intra-pulse modulation, pulse modulation, and amplification/attenuation stages into the fast
frequency synthesizer.

The UXG meets important functional and performance requirements for EW test by combining
a DDS-based agile source and a matching agile attenuator to create a high level of functional
integration:

–– Fast frequency, amplitude, and phase switching for quick transitions between multiple
emitters
–– High dynamic range to match the dynamic range of modern EW receivers
–– Simulates multiple threats with accurate power levels and a large, agile amplitude range
that can switch amplitude as quickly as frequency
–– Low noise floor to test receiver sensitivity as channels are combined
–– Pulse modulation with a high on/off ratio and fast settling with low distortion
–– Intrapulse modulation capability for pulse compression such as Barker codes and linear
frequency modulation
–– Scalable to multi-channel and multi-port threat simulation to easily increase pulse density
and realism
–– Wide frequency range from near DC to 40 GHz to keep pace with modern threat simulation
requirements
–– BCD frequency control interface for backward compatibility with legacy sources previously
used as LOs
–– LAN and LVDS interfaces to allow high-rate PDW streaming

EW simulation sources need a fast, full-featured interface for streaming complete PDWs at a
high rate rather than frequency-only control.

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 19


Conclusion
A variety of traditional technologies have been used to generate the signals needed for
effective EW simulation. Each of these technologies has brought a different combination of
benefits and challenges. The highest-fidelity solutions have provided realistic simulations of
the EW environment, but their complexity and expense have limited their use.

Recent innovations in core hardware such as DACs and FPGAs have enabled new solutions
with the hardware simplicity and reliability of traditional test equipment. These solutions
will provide dramatic improvements in solution cost and size, bringing high-fidelity EW
environment simulation to a much earlier phase in the design process. Using realistic
EW environment simulation at the optimization and pre-verification stages of design will
improve performance, speed the design process, and reduce overall costs.

Learn more at: www.keysight.com


For more information on Keysight Technologies’ products, applications or services,
please contact your local Keysight office. The complete list is available at:
www.keysight.com/find/contactus

Find us at www.keysight.com Page 20


This information is subject to change without notice. © Keysight Technologies, 2014 - 2020, Published in USA , June 15, 2020, 5992-0094EN

You might also like