A Study of the Effects of Amplitude and Phase Errors on Angle-Measurement Accuracy in Phased Array Radar under Interference Cancellation Conditions

ZHAN Siheng; ZHOU Liang; SHEN Ruobin; ZHANG Jiahao; WANG Bin; MENG Jin

doi:10.11999/JEIT251195

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of Electronics & Information Technology > 2025 >

ZHAN Siheng, ZHOU Liang, SHEN Ruobin, ZHANG Jiahao, WANG Bin, MENG Jin. A Study of the Effects of Amplitude and Phase Errors on Angle-Measurement Accuracy in Phased Array Radar under Interference Cancellation Conditions[J]. Journal of Electronics & Information Technology. doi: 10.11999/JEIT251195

Citation:

ZHAN Siheng, ZHOU Liang, SHEN Ruobin, ZHANG Jiahao, WANG Bin, MENG Jin. A Study of the Effects of Amplitude and Phase Errors on Angle-Measurement Accuracy in Phased Array Radar under Interference Cancellation Conditions[J]. Journal of Electronics & Information Technology. doi: 10.11999/JEIT251195

Citation:

ZHAN Siheng, ZHOU Liang, SHEN Ruobin, ZHANG Jiahao, WANG Bin, MENG Jin. A Study of the Effects of Amplitude and Phase Errors on Angle-Measurement Accuracy in Phased Array Radar under Interference Cancellation Conditions[J]. Journal of Electronics & Information Technology. doi: 10.11999/JEIT251195

PDF( 5292 KB)

A Study of the Effects of Amplitude and Phase Errors on Angle-Measurement Accuracy in Phased Array Radar under Interference Cancellation Conditions

doi: 10.11999/JEIT251195 cstr: 32379.14.JEIT251195

ZHAN Siheng^{1, 2},
ZHOU Liang^{2
,
,},
SHEN Ruobin²,
ZHANG Jiahao²,
WANG Bin¹,
MENG Jin^{2, 3}

1.
School of Electronic Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China
2.
National Key Laboratory of Electromagnetic Energy Technology, Naval University of Engineering, Wuhan 430033, China
3.
Qianyuan National Laboratory, Hangzhou 310024, China

Received Date: 2025-11-13
Accepted Date: 2026-03-24
Rev Recd Date: 2026-03-24

Available Online: 2026-05-03

Abstract

Abstract

Objective The electromagnetic environment is becoming increasingly complex, and mainlobe suppression jamming degrades the detection performance of phased array radars. Adaptive Interference Cancellation (AIC) can suppress such jamming. However, it may distort the mainlobe pattern and introduce azimuth angle-measurement errors. Most existing studies focus on interference cancellation mechanisms, whereas the angle-measurement errors caused by cancellation have received limited attention. Receive-channel amplitude and phase errors can further reduce angle-measurement accuracy. This paper investigates the effect of receive-channel amplitude and phase errors on the angle-measurement errors of monopulse phased array radar without a difference-difference channel. Methods A monopulse phased array radar without a difference-difference channel is analyzed. Receive-channel amplitude and phase errors are modeled by normal distributions. The mean represents the systematic offset, and the standard deviation represents random fluctuation. The operating principles of phased array radar receivers, monopulse radar systems, sum-difference angle measurement, and mainlobe suppression jamming cancellation are first described. Two angle-measurement models are then derived: an ideal reference model and an amplitude and phase error model. Under ideal interference-free and error-free conditions, the effective angle-measurement range of the radar is ±2.5°. The jamming source is set at –1.2°, and the corresponding angle-measurement results are used as the reference for subsequent experiments. Monte Carlo simulations, with 100 independent tests for each parameter set, are performed to analyze the statistical characteristics of the angle-measurement errors. Heatmaps are used to present the absolute errors and their variation trends. Results and Discussions (1) Without receive-channel amplitude and phase errors, the jamming angle remains fixed at –1.2°. Before interference cancellation, the target indication angle is consistent with the true value. After cancellation, the absolute error between the target indication angle and the true value near the beam normal is no more than 0.1°. However, a cancellation null near the jamming angle causes abrupt changes in the azimuth indication, and the error increases as the target moves away from the beam normal. (2) Before cancellation, the azimuth angle-measurement error increases with the absolute amplitude-error mean and the incident angle. The error reaches more than 0.06° when the amplitude-error mean is ±0.9 dB and the incident angle is ±2.5°. Within an incident-angle range of ±2°, the error is generally below 0.02°. When the amplitude-error mean is fixed, the error increases with the amplitude-error standard deviation. When the phase-error standard deviation is fixed, the error increases with the absolute phase-error mean. The error exceeds 0.15° at a phase-error mean of ±0.9° and reaches approximately 0.6° at a phase-error standard deviation of 6° and an incident angle of ±2.5°. (3) After cancellation, the effect of phase error is strongest at an incident angle of 0.5°, where the azimuth angle-measurement error reaches approximately 0.4°. Outside this region, the error is generally controlled within 0.2° and decreases rapidly as the target moves away from the beam normal. Conclusions This paper quantifies the effect of receive-channel amplitude and phase errors on azimuth angle-measurement errors before and after interference cancellation. The main conclusions are as follows. First, amplitude and phase errors both cause random fluctuations in azimuth angle measurement, and phase errors have a stronger effect than amplitude errors. Second, in the absence of jamming, azimuth angle-measurement errors are smallest near the beam normal and increase as the target approaches the boundary of the effective angle-measurement range. Third, under jamming and cancellation conditions, the azimuth angle-measurement error reaches its peak near the beam normal and then decreases rapidly. This study provides guidance for azimuth angle-measurement error assessment, error budgeting, and mainlobe suppression jamming cancellation in engineering applications. Future work will focus on non-normal amplitude and phase errors, calibration dynamics, multiple-jamming-source scenarios, and experimental validation.
- Phased Array Radar,
- Sum-Difference Angle Measurement,
- Mainlobe Suppression Jamming,
- Adaptive Interference Cancellation,
- Amplitude and Phase Error

FullText(HTML)

References(23)

References

[1]	ZHANG Chudi, WANG Lei, JIANG Rundong, et al. Radar jamming decision-making in cognitive electronic warfare: A review[J]. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2023, 23(11): 11383–11403. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2023.3267068.
[2]	HUANG Penghui, YANG Hao, ZOU Zihao, et al. Multichannel clutter modeling, analysis, and suppression for missile-borne radar systems[J]. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2022, 58(4): 3236–3260. doi: 10.1109/TAES.2022.3147136.
[3]	LIU Quanhua, WANG Changjie, TIAN Dezhi, et al. A mainlobe jamming suppression method for an FDA–MIMO radar system with an ultralarge sparse aperture[J]. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2025, 61(5): 11350–11363. doi: 10.1109/TAES.2025.3566087.
[4]	信业镝, 何方敏, 葛松虎, 等. 基于空间参考信号的数字干扰对消系统性能分析[J]. 电子与信息学报, 2025, 47(12): 5126–5136. doi: 10.11999/JEIT250679. XIN Yedi, HE Fangmin, GE Songhu, et al. Performance analysis of spatial-reference-signal-based digital interference cancellation systems[J]. Journal of Electronics & Information Technology, 2025, 47(12): 5126–5136. doi: 10.11999/JEIT250679.
[5]	SHAO Shuai, WANG Wenqin, SUN Yan, et al. Effects of spatial position on mainlobe interference suppression performance of FDA-MIMO radar[J]. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2024, 60(6): 9437–9443. doi: 10.1109/TAES.2024.3443778.
[6]	GUO Xiaolu, SU Jia, and ZHU Nan. Interference suppression algorithm based on short time fractional Fourier transform[J]. Sensors, 2024, 24(6): 1785. doi: 10.3390/s24061785.
[7]	KIM Y, WONG K K, ZHANG Jianzhong, et al. Low complexity frequency domain nonlinear self-interference cancellation for flexible duplex[J]. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2025, 24(8): 6627–6642. doi: 10.1109/TWC.2025.3554988.
[8]	LIU Jiancheng, ZHANG Jingtao, LI Tian, et al. Unintended interference suppression based on decision feedback adaptive cancellation for DSSS satellite communication[J]. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 2025, 34(2): 673–682. doi: 10.23919/cje.2023.00.398.
[9]	LU Qiaran, QIN Huanding, HE Fangmin, et al. Wideband interference cancellation system based on a fast and robust LMS algorithm[J]. Sensors, 2023, 23(18): 7871. doi: 10.3390/s23187871.
[10]	WHIPPLE A, RUZINDANA M W, BURNETT M C, et al. Wideband array signal processing with real-time adaptive interference mitigation[J]. Sensors, 2023, 23(14): 6584. doi: 10.3390/s23146584.
[11]	LI Shuai, CHEN Xiaoyang, HOU Xiaogeng, et al. Wideband adaptive beamforming for mainlobe interferences based on angle-frequency reciprocity and covariance matrix reconstruction[C]. 2021 CIE International Conference on Radar, Haikou, China, 2021: 1561–1565. doi: 10.1109/Radar53847.2021.10028512.
[12]	HAN Bowen, YANG Xiaopeng, LV Qiang, et al. Mainlobe and sidelobe jamming suppression method based on distributed array radar with eigen-projection matrix processing and null constraints[J]. IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation, 2024, 18(11): 2212–2221. doi: 10.1049/rsn2.12533.
[13]	GARIKAPATI S, NAGULU A, KADOTA I, et al. Full-duplex receiver with wideband, high-power RF self-interference cancellation based on capacitor stacking in switched-capacitor delay lines[J]. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 2024, 59(7): 2105–2120. doi: 10.1109/JSSC.2024.3351615.
[14]	LI Ruike, HE Huafeng, LIU Xiang, et al. An anti-mainlobe suppression jamming method based on improved blind source separation using variational mode decomposition and wavelet packet decomposition[J]. Sensors, 2025, 25(11): 3404. doi: 10.3390/s25113404.
[15]	WANG Wenqin. Frequency diverse array auto-scanning beam characteristics and potential radar applications[J]. IEEE Access, 2022, 10: 85278–85288. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3197191.
[16]	MA Xiaofeng, JIANG Siqin, ZHANG Shurui, et al. Joint wideband beamforming algorithm for main lobe jamming suppression in distributed array radar[J]. Remote Sensing, 2024, 16(13): 2402. doi: 10.3390/rs16132402.
[17]	LI Hongtao, RAN Longyao, CHEN Shengyao, et al. Antenna selection and receive beamforming for multi-functional sparse linear array via consensus ADMM[J]. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2024, 73(7): 10435–10450. doi: 10.1109/TVT.2024.3383210.
[18]	WANG Xiangtuan, RUAN Hang, LIU Yimin, et al. A Random Antenna subset selection jamming method against multistatic radar system[J]. Signal Processing, 2021, 186: 108126. doi: 10.1016/j.sigpro.2021.108126.
[19]	吴振华, 崔金鑫, 曹宜策, 等. 零记忆增量学习的复合有源干扰识别[J]. 电子与信息学报, 2025, 47(1): 188–200. doi: 10.11999/JEIT240521. WU Zhenhua, CUI Jinxin, CAO Yice, et al. Compound active jamming recognition for zero-memory incremental learning[J]. Journal of Electronics & Information Technology, 2025, 47(1): 188–200. doi: 10.11999/JEIT240521.
[20]	林志平, 肖亮, 陈宏毅, 等. 面向大语言模型的抗干扰协同推断技术[J]. 电子与信息学报, 2025, 47(11): 4572–4582. doi: 10.11999/JEIT250675. LIN Zhiping, XIAO Liang, CHEN Hongyi, et al. Collaborative inference for large language models against jamming attacks[J]. Journal of Electronics & Information Technology, 2025, 47(11): 4572–4582. doi: 10.11999/JEIT250675.
[21]	PENG Wenshen, HE Chuan, CAO Fei, et al. Enhanced radar anti-jamming with multi-agent reinforcement learning[J]. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2024, 31: 3114–3118. doi: 10.1109/LSP.2024.3493797.
[22]	YANG Haonan, LIU Yongcai, ZHOU Liang, et al. The effect of excitation errors on the performance of AESA-based cross-eye jammers[J]. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 2024, 23(3): 955–959. doi: 10.1109/LAWP.2023.3340194.
[23]	SUN Ran, SAKAI J, SUZUKI K, et al. Antenna element space interference cancelling radar for angle estimations of multiple targets[J]. IEEE Access, 2021, 9: 72547–72555. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3078895.