There is a trend to perform 2D CFAR professors. This suggests implementing the detection process in both time and frequency domains. This is useful especially when interference or jamming is presenting the range cells only of the radar vicinity.

HELLO SIR;

Thank you, you have interested  my resume . I Havent any idea about you question.

I will Hope you can solve your problem.

with Regard

M.R.Aghaei

Dear José Raúl Machado Fernández,An alternative "RDT-CFAR" processor is formulated to eliminate reliance on spatial correlation, and this reduces CFAR loss by more than 10 dB in spectrally homogeneous spiky clutter. However, an increase in false alarm rate in clutter without constant spectrum is demonstrated. The RDT-CFAR processor has been modified to eliminate dependence on surrounding range bins. The "δ-CFAR" processor reduces CFAR loss by more than 10 dB in even moderately spiky clutter. It is also immune to extraneous targets and clutter edges, and its false alarm performance is insensitive to clutter spikiness.

Dear Christi, your answer is very interesting, however, I wonder about the reduction in CFAR loss with more than 10 dB. This is a very high value of loss for any CFAR processor. Can you give us more details about this value?

Dear José Raùl,

the universe of CFAR algorithms is really vaste.

The CFARs that you listed belong to the family of Sliding Window (SW) CFAR, that is logic blocks placed after linear, squared law or logaritmic detector, aimed to estimate the signal's background in the surrounding of the cull under test (CUT), in order to set a correct threshold for detection.

SW CFARs differ from Clutter Map (CM) CFARs in that they exploits spatial-omogeneity of the background, instead of time-stability.

SW CFARs work properly only when the processed samples are statistically independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.).

If this condition is verified, than there are many algorithms that can be exploited: CAOS, CASH, SW-OS (aka SOS), SUM, TM ("Trimmed Mean"), LL, and structured CFAR as EA, INT, etc ...  You can easily find a theme with a basic internet search.

Each of these algorithms is characterized by different CFAR losses under certain assumptions and by different resiliency to background inhomogeneities.

Nevertheless, whenever the iid condition is not verified (this is the case of a ground-based radar opertaing without total clutter-cancellation), a "Clutter Distribution Loss" needs to be accounted for.

In this case the employment of CM CFAR is preferable.

I am not sure I have completely answered to your question, but I hope I gave you some good hint.

Francesco

Five different constant false alarm rate (CFAR) radar processing schemes are considered and their performances analyzed in homogeneous and nonhomogeneous backgrounds, the latter specifically being the multiple target environment and regions of clutter transitions. The average detection threshold for each of the CFAR schemes was computed to measure and compare the detection performance in homogeneous noise background. The exponential noise model was used for clear and clutter backgrounds to get closed-form expressions. The processor types compared are: the cell-averaging CFAR, the 'greatest of' CFAR, the 'smallest of' CFAR, the ordered-statistics CFAR, and a modified ordered-statistics processor called the trimmed-mean CFAR.