A CFAR Algorithm for Radar Detection Under
Severe Interference
Tri-Tan Van Cao
Defence Science & Technology Organisation
PO Box 1500, Edinburgh, SA 5111, Australia. E-mail: tan.cao@dsto.defence.gov.au
Abstract
A new radar Constant False Alarm Rate (CFAR) detection
algorithm operating under severe interference is developed in
this paper. The new CFAR algorithm, designated as Switching
CFAR (S-CFAR), is presented and analysed in closed-form
based on Swerling I nonhomogeneous clutter and target model.
Mathematical analysis demonstrates that the S-CFAR is robust
when up to half of the search region is occupied by interfering
samples. The S-CFAR algorithm is useful in applications where
a radar performs detection in a clear region of its range and/or
Doppler profile with an unknown number of interfering target
(and possibly jamming) samples. S-CFAR implementation is
also simple since no sample ordering is required.
1. I NTRODUCTION
The radar detection problem can be formulated as a binary
decision, i.e., a target is declared: (i) to be present if the test
sample is larger than a predefined threshold, or (ii) to be absent
otherwise. An automatic detection scheme with an adaptive
threshold is often employed to provide a Constant False Alarm
Rate (CFAR) performance in order to maintain the rate of false
alarm reported at a manageable level [1].
The most basic form of the adaptive threshold processor
is the well-known cell-averaging CFAR (CA-CFAR) [2]. The
input to the processor is the output of the envelope detector,
which is sampled in range (and Doppler if possible). Each
sample in the range/Doppler dimensions is called a cell. The
test cell is the cell at which a detection decision has to be
made. The interference power in each test cell is estimated
using its surrounding cells which are termed reference cells.
In the range-Doppler map, the reference cells form a reference
window. The interference estimation is simply the sample
mean of the power available in the cells within a reference
window. The adaptive threshold is then formed by multiplying
the interference estimate with a constant, the value of which is
determined by the required false alarm rate. A few immediate
neighbours (known as guard cells) on each side of the test cell
are excluded from the estimation to prevent possible power
spill-over from the test cell.
Under the condition that the sample in each reference
cell is independent and identically distributed (iid) and is
governed by the exponential distribution, performance of the
CA-CFAR processor is optimal (in the sense that the detection
probability is maximised for a given false alarm rate) when
0-7803-8894-1/04/$20.00  2004 IEEE 167
the number of reference cells is large. However, in general
it is not possible to select an appropriate reference sample
set satisfying this condition due to the presence of interfering
samples, e.g., other interfering targets and/or jamming signals.
If the reference sample set contains a number of interfering
signals, the threshold will be raised unnecessarily, leading to
target masking.
In order to adapt to the presence of interfering signals,
many modifications of the conventional CA-CFAR have been
proposed in the literature [3]. These include: the smaller-
of CFAR (SO-CFAR) which is designed to improve target
detection in the presence of multiple targets, by splitting
the reference window into a leading part and a lagging
part and then selecting the part with a smaller sample sum
for threshold computation [4]; the greater-of CFAR (GO-
CFAR) which is designed to minimise the false alarm rate
at clutter edge (by selecting the part with a greater sample
sum) [5]; the excision CFAR in which those samples with
amplitudes greater than an excision threshold will not be used
for detection threshold computation [6], [7], [8]; the order
statistic CFAR (OS-CFAR), where the interference estimate is


given by the amplitude of the ordered reference sample
[9]; the censored mean level detector CFAR (CMLD-CFAR),
where the  largest ranked samples are discarded and the
remaining samples are used for interference estimation via
the cell averaging method [10]; the trimmed mean CFAR
(TM-CFAR) where the smallest ranked samples are also

discarded in addition to the  largest ranked samples [11],
etc. A variety of combinations of different CFAR algorithms
are also proposed, e.g., [12], [13], [14], etc.
However, if the actual number of interfering samples ex-
ceeds the assumed value, robustness of these modified CFAR
algorithms is no longer guaranteed. In addition, none of the
above mentioned CFAR algorithms exploits the statistical
properties of the sample in the test cell during reference sample
selection.
Recently, a CFAR detection algorithm known as Switching
CFAR (S-CFAR), that takes into account the amplitude of the
test cell for reference sample selection, has been proposed
in [15]. The unique structure of the S-CFAR is its switching
action, which allows the processor to select: (i) either only
the small thermal noise samples for interference estimation
when interferers are present, or (ii) the whole CFAR window
to minimise the false alarm rate when there are no interferers.
Continuing this research theme, closed-form analysis of the
ISSNIP 2004
 X

S-CFAR algorithm in a nonhomogeneous environment based where (with ) and (with ) [

D b


7
-
: + M c

[
D b


7
- V
+ M

on Swerling I target/background model is first given in this are the probabilities of detection when there are exactly 7
-

paper. Application of the S-CFAR for target detection in the samples in . is the statistical average performed over ,
-
 

5


presence of an unknown number of interfering samples is then the probability density function (pdf ) of the sample in the a


presented. test cell, and a subscript denotes a probability conditioned b



on . 

2. T HE S-CFAR A LGORITHM .
X

A generic CFAR processor receives input from the square law A. Computation of  

[
D b
 

.
detected video range samples (i.e., range cells). Assume that Let be the number of interfering samples contained in a
g
a

the amplitude in each cell is an iid random variable with an CFAR window. One has:
exponential pdf described by: [ n p q [
D r


X X

   

 
 

 
  


(1)
[
D b

k m

[
D

q
b



(6)
U
D

>

where if the cell contains thermal noise only ( is the

 

where the sum starts from:

k

thermal noise power); if the cell contains a

  

 $ &


target return with an average signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of , &

g
-

s u


 

7
-
  +

$
g


(7)
( (

and if the cell contains a clutter return or

   

an interfering target with an average interference-to-noise ratio

 $ &

which is the possibly smallest number of interfering samples

sorted to ;
X

(INR) of . This means that Swerling I targets in Rayleigh

(

is the probability of detection when there ,

-
[
D

q
b


are interfering samples sorted to . Note that

X

background are assumed [11]. The S-CFAR processor consists

&

can k

,
-
[
D

q
b


of the following two detection stages. be expressed as: k

Stage 1. Samples in a CFAR window with reference cells  +

[
D

q
b 

[
D

q
b  y
X

[
D

q
b 

(8)
are partitioned into two sets and as follows: , - , /

X
k k k

where is the probability that there are exactly x

[
D

q
b
 s

interfering samples and thermal noise samples in

, /

 s

-
7

1

 0 

(2) , , and
-
is the probability that the test cell survives {

[
D

q
b


the Stage 2 threshold formed by those samples in . In the k

,
-

following section,
X

and
X

are computed.
- 2
,

x
 { 
D b D b

[ q [ q

i.e., a reference sample , , either belongs to 

0





 5 5 5
 +

The probability that a sample , the pdf of which is k



k
0

the set if it is less than the threshold , or belongs to the

,
-


described by (1), is sorted to is: ,

-

set , otherwise, where is the amplitude of the sample in



1
 1

/
,

 ˆ ‰

the test cell, and is a scaling factor.

X } ~  €

(9)
2

0 0 0
  
‚ „     † 

@

 ‡ 5

Stage 2. Let be the number of samples contained in . A 7

-
,
-

target is declared in the test cell if: By setting in (9), the probability that a thermal noise
2
2

 

(i)
8

sample is sorted to is: , -

 ˆ

(3)
-

(10)
0
 : <  : + M

Š   

b

 F H   O P
-
7 7

 ‡ 5
-

 @ B C D

- >
7

R ‹

By setting in (9), the probability that an interfering

(ii)
sample is sorted to is: ,
-

(4)
/

0
 :  + M
<

 ‰  Ž

(11)
 F H 
- V
7 7

Š   

b
 + R S

0 U

‡
 5
/
>

where and are constants, and is a threshold <

-

<
/
+
M

For interfering samples that appear in the CFAR window,

g
2

integer. the probability that there are exactly of them sorted to s

,
-

Inequalities (3) and (4) mean that the S-CFAR switches is then:
between the sample set and the whole reference window, ,
-

€
p

(12)
g

Š C  s  
“ Š     Š    
b b b

depending on the value of , hence the name switching 7

-
/


s •
/

k

/
‡

k
5

CFAR. In the following section, the probability of detection

For thermal noise samples that appear in the CFAR
2 2 2

 + 

of the S-CFAR algorithm is computed. g

window, the probability that there are exactly of them 7

-
 s

3. M ATHEMATICAL A NALYSIS . sorted to is: , -

From (3) and (4), the detection probability of the S-CFAR is: Š   s
b 


- š 7 -

 + 

r
D D

[ p n [

X X

Š    Š   
“ b  b 

 + + 
   c 
M  D b   D b 

[ [

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 5

- -

    

- /

 s •

$
< < ]
S
R S

k k

-
7

U
D

U
D

> >

R S
-

(13)
/ a a

(5) 2 2

S ] _

ISSNIP 2004 168



From (12) and (13), 



is then: Combining (19) with (6), and then averaging over the pdf of




, one has:
W






 


 



  







 



 


(14)  8

 4 ‹  

Let: 



 

 


 
  C  !





"

" + "


(15)
‹
C $ R

‡ 




# 
 
+

 Ž


    

" " @ €    




! !
  %    

C
- - - -


H

 0   0 0 0

 

! !
>

where and are the thermal noise and interfering

  

C $ R

(21)
#
 

samples sorted to ! %

&
!

 , respectively. The pdf of is:

where:


  

+ < <
 8 8
9 ; 9 ;

4 4

= =

 

- -




0 0

"


+ "

 


5 7 >




(  

9 ; 
 I

 D 

N N

G
? ? H
„ „

H


H
@ B    F    F

     v

2 2

 
 

C C

R C $ R
3

 

N
H H
?


U ? ?

       @ B    F

>

M K +   F v + +   F
N  

5 7

     

"

 

 

C R C $ R
J

$ C $ R $ $ C $ R

8


9 ;


1
U ?

4 

(22)
   K M  

K    W F


>

"

>

   
2

„

 

 
5 7 >

(16)
in which and are defined in (18) and (20), respec-


v + +

   

where satisfies X 

$


U
 W

, and U
  

 , ,

C
  

tively.
  

N
  

$ C


  
 

$


C
for  `

C
. Using (16) , one
has:


B. Computation of   


 
 

.


a  

One has:
 

 

  D e 

8


 4 ‹  

c (   f





 

 !










(23)
 "



‹

  

+ < <
8  8
9 ; 9 ;

4 4

= =




- -





0 0

where is defined in (7); and is the probability of

3


  

"


+ "

 


 


5 7 >

@ B  
 D

 F



?
G H

 
 I

=
9 ;

 F
detection when there are samples sorted to ( ),  


&   
` €
“

2 2

of which are interfering samples. One has:



 

C C 

 

? H H U

        F    K

5 7

 

C R C $ R $ C
J

+ 
8 8 

9 ;

4 4 

(24)
   K M    @ B 


      J —   

>

"

N      
 
  2

u
  

5 7 >

W v + F

 8
r s t
9 ; q

where is given in (14), i.e., the probability that there



 

(17)
  


J o

 

u {

2  

C >
 K  @ B 

5 7
u
"


are samples in , of which are interfering samples;  


& 


and is the probability that the test cell survives the —





 

where: conventional CA-CFAR thresholding test performed over the 

(18)


+
v    X }

 




|



$



whole reference samples, of which are in . Let: @ €



&


G
H H

From (8), (14), (17), and with @ B 

C $ R


, one has: 




‹ 


  









$ 5 ˜ >


$


$


(25)
" " " "

 !  !  % !  % !

 
  a  

   

! ! ! !




 

@ €    
  
+


where and are the thermal noise samples sorted to #

#


and , respectively; and and are the interfering



   

C
! !
- - - -




   
& &

 0   0 0 0

samples sorted to and , respectively. The pdf of is:

 

>

"
  

+ "

! !
% %

C $ R  
& &

  

N


H H
?

  F
J

  


U

 
R C $ R
M K

  
- -

 

"

0 0


C

"

+ "


H
u



>

(  

W v + F

8  8 8 
r s t r s t r s t
9 ; ƒ 9 ; ƒ q
=

 I 9 ;


 8
  

9 ;
4 4 4

4 


J o
     = 

u {

2  2  

2 2

 

>  K  @ B 

C C

"

 
+ +
 ™ I 9 ; 8 8

u 9 ; š

4  4

5 7 5 7 >

5 7

(19)
2

  

G
?

 @ €   K  @ B  F

5 ˜ > 5 7

where: „




N
?
H

5
 @

˜
€ 



1


 W F
N

2
4
8
9 ;

 

$ $
J

N 

 

G
U ?

H
M  @ € 

K  @ B   F
N 

5 ˜ > 5 7

(20)


"

+ $ @ €   

 

 


H
    †

$ $ $

C $ R

(26)
 …

169 ISSNIP 2004

 u



where satisfies . Using (26) one in which and are defined in (20) and (28), respec-
`

/ /
   
 

   

has: tively. Finally, substituting (21) and (30) into (5), one has:


    
ƒ

&
    !

d d d d
 %

   #     +
  

$ $

 

 P

 N F  

3 3

6
 y




1 1 





E …

. .


4 4 . / .


- - - -

 

F
6 q

/ .

- -

 ~



  
< >
 ;

 

3 3
 ; 

< >


 
?  I I  

6
1 1 1 1

8 8

,


, ,

6 6

3 4
3 4 4 4
9

 

 

 
6 q

/
 L ; < > P
< > Q

 P
 N

I


6  N F  

,
 8

B B
!

J
G
9
+

-H

6
 y


, 

7 C O

C E

. . / .
 

[ - - - -

C E

%
!


 F
6 q

>

% `

   ]  / +

 P
U W X
< > T

,
 

,
/

ˆ




  
b

 

3 3

6
a J
C E 7


I I 

…
E 7

6
. 1 1 1 1

[
- %

> d

C O

3 4
3 4 4 4

 

H d

B
!

6 q

(32)
  ] 
+
%

, ,

(27)  

where and are defined in (22) and (31),

ˆ
~

   

d d
 

where: respectively; and is given in (7). I 


4. S-CFAR D ESIGN U NDER S EVERE I NTERFERENCE .
(28)
%

/   
  
  i

 

,
j

Application of the S-CFAR algorithm for target detection

$

under severe interference is addressed in this section. Suppose

Substituting (14) and (27) into (24), then:
that the detector is expected to operate in the clear region



of a range and/or Doppler profile (e.g., of an airborne radar

k






 
,

  operating low PRF or high PRF modes [16], or in the en-



-
.

-
.


tire search region of an electronic support system which is
designed to detect signals from all possible directions [17]).
/




 

3 3


I I 

The interference consists of an unknown number of interfering

1 1 1 1 6

4 4 4 4
3
3

 

 
6 q

targets and possibly jamming signals. Suppose that the number

of interfering samples occupied up to half of the clear region.
H

 P
< > U W X
s

8 ,


Of course, if there are too many interfering samples (e.g.,

G J

-H

C O

 P

< > T
U W X
H

   ] 
%
`

/ +
[

>
occupying more than half of the clear region), not much can
be done from a CFAR perspective.
,

 

6
C E 7 a J

[ -

>
.

Supposed that the largest CFAR window that covers the

(29)
C O

u
!

  ] 

,
%

,
%

,
H

  ] 

,
H j

whole clear region consists of cells. In an ho-    ‹ Œ

mogeneous thermal noise only environment, assume that a

where is as defined in (20). Combining (29) with (23) /

 
conventional CFAR window with cells is employed.   

6
‹

where , and then performing the average over

B

  ] 

Theoretically, the larger a CFAR window is, the better its

detection performance is (i.e., closer to the performance of
6 q

the pdf of , one has: 

the optimum detector), provided that the more distant cells

  k


 
 
still have the same statistics as that of the noise in the test
x
 N F  

P



cell. Since the number of interfering samples is unknown and

6  y
,



the S-CFAR detector can be tuned to tolerate a large number
6 q
-
.

F



-
.

-
.
of interfering samples (as demonstrated later in this paper),
the largest CFAR window with cells is considered.


   ‹ Œ

 ~



  

 

3 3

1
I

3 4
1

3
I

4
1



4
1

4
6

F
d

d
With the nominal value (half window size), Fig.  ƒ  ‘ 

1 shows
!

versus the false alarm

 

  i ‹ +

d
 %

6 q

6 6

(30)
$ $ $ “

probability
 • –

of the CA-CFAR and the S-CFAR at different

values of . The curves are computed using (32) by setting
where: q


. Assume that a is required. At this

q

 i

• –

6
i

, ˜

 

value, as decreases from to , the S-CFAR

• – • –

i ‹ i 

j j

curves move further away from the CA-CFAR curve. This

• –

  

means that in order to achieve the same , a larger CFAR

• –

H 

H H

u u

   

 
I

constant is required, and consequently there will be more

q 6 q

d
 ! !

G J /   + / / C E  7  +
% %

     

CFAR loss in an homogeneous environment as decreases.

H -

, ,

6 q 6 q

C E 7

(31) Note that larger leads to poorer detection performance in a



ISSNIP 2004 170

 −1 1
CA
α =0.2
S Optimal
−2 0.8

Detection Probability
−3 S (2N=64, N =16)
i
0.6
log(Pfa)

0.3
−4 CA (2N=16, N =0)
i
0.4 0.4
−5 α =0.5
0.6
0.2
−6

−7 0
10 12 14 16 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
β SNR (dB)

Fig. 1: Selection of for window size
   . Fig. 3: S-CFAR and CA-CFAR detection performances.

0 1
NT=32 S
−1 27 OS
22 0.8
−2 CA
17

Detection Probability
12
−3 0.6
log(Pfa)

Ni=0
−4

−5 0.4 Ni=32

Ni=8
−6
0.2
−7

−8 0
5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25
β SNR (dB)

Fig. 2: Selection of   for window size
   and     . Fig. 4: Detection performances in worst case.

multiple target situation. A reasonable choice is , i.e.,  




same SNR), and of the CA-CFAR processor with the nominal

window size in a thermal noise only environment. It
  

corresponding to an S-CFAR curve that does not deviate '  

)
>

too far from the CA-CFAR curve. is evident that the detection performance of the large window


After selecting the CFAR window size and the sorting S-CFAR processor at SNR above 10dB is still better than that
threshold multiplier , the S-CFAR false alarm probability of the CA-CFAR processor in terms of CFAR loss.
Fig. 4 shows the detection probabilities at
  

of
  

is again plotted for different values of as shown in

 

 

0 2

Fig. 2. As decreases, the the designed S-CFAR, CA-CFAR ( ), and OS-CFAR

  

curves move away from the



'   > ?

 

D
E G

curve with . This means that larger (and       '

(
( ' 

, 

) in the presence of interference with the

> ?   '

hence more CFAR loss in an homogeneous environment) is same SNR as that of the target. Parameters of the OS-CFAR
are selected such that it has the same CFAR loss as that of


required in order to achieve the same . However, a smaller

 

gives better detection performance in a non-homogeneous



the designed S-CFAR in a homogeneous thermal noise only

environment. Therefore, a reasonable choice is , i.e., 



) *
environment. The CA-CFAR fails with only contaminated H

cells. S-CFAR detection, however, is very robust with up to 32



corresponding to an S-CFAR curve that does not deviate

 

interfering samples in its CFAR window. Provided that an SNR

  

too far from the curve with . At ,       ' 

)


0 2

the curve gives

 

. 

) *
(


) 4

 

of 20dB can be maintained, S-CFAR detection has very small

In summary, parameters of the S-CFAR processor are:  

CFAR loss (less than 0.5dB). Although OS-CFAR does have



, '

, , and 

. 


   

) *
(
8


(
9


(


) 4

 

some degree of robustness against interference, its detection

performance suffers from severe CFAR loss (e.g., 6dB in worst


5. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS . case even with the target SNR of 20dB). These results show
From an interference estimation point-of-view, as a reference that the problem of target masking due to severe interference
sample is located further from the test cell, it is less repre- can not be solved by simply extending the CFAR window of
sentative of the noise level in the test cell. For this reason, the CA-CFAR or OS-CFAR detectors. 

to be realistic in the following performance comparisons, a Fig. 5 shows the detection thresholds at of
 

 

0 2

quarter of the designed S-CFAR window is expected to contain the large window S-CFAR ( , , '   > ?  




(
8


(
9


D
E G

interfering samples. Fig. 3 shows the detection performance at

  
(


) and OS-CFAR (
) 4
, 

) in worst
  '   > ?   '

of the designed S-CFAR processor ( ) case. There are three groups of targets: ranges [17-23], [25-


  '   > ?

0 2

in the presence of interference samples (at the  

)
>

36], and [40-51]. Nearly half of the range profile is filled with
@

171 ISSNIP 2004

 20
6. C ONCLUSIONS
16
A new CFAR detection algorithm, designated as S-CFAR,
OS (2N=64,
k=32)
has been analysed in closed form in a nonhomogeneous
Signal Level (dB)

12 S (2N=64) environment based on Swerling I target/background model.

Application of the S-CFAR algorithm for detection with severe
8
interference is demonstrated using a large CFAR window that
covers the whole range of the search region. Simulation based
4
on synthetic data shows that the S-CFAR algorithm has a much
better performance than that of the CA-CFAR, SO-CFAR, and
0
OS-CFAR, in terms of detecting groups of targets or targets
0 15 30 45 60 70
Range
masked by interfering signals. The S-CFAR algorithm is useful
in applications where detection of targets and/or the presence
Fig. 5: CFAR detection thresholds in worst case. of jamming signals is performed in the clear region of the
range and/or Doppler profile.
30 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
OS(2N=16, k=8)
SO(2N=16)
25 The author would like to thank Dr. Thomas A. Winchester and
S(2N=64)
Dr. John L. Whitrow for their valuable inputs to this paper.
Signal Level (dB)

20
15
10
5 Review, 29(3):414–464, September, 1968.
0
0 15
Fig. 6: CFAR detection thresholds.
interfering targets/jamming samples of the same SNR=15dB.
The large window OS-CFAR detects nothing due to the large
CFAR loss as analysed above. The large window S-CFAR
detects one (largest) sample in the first group, two samples
in the second group, and one sample in the third group.
Fig. 6 shows the detection thresholds at
R EFERENCES
[1] M.I. Skolnik. Introduction to Radar Systems. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, USA, 3rd edition, 2001.
[2] H.M. Finn and R.S. Johnson. Adaptive detection mode with threshold
control as a function of spatially sampled clutter level estimate. RCA
[3] P. Antonik, B. Bowies, G. Capraro, and L. Hennington. Intelligent Use
of CFAR. Kaman Sciences Corporation, USA, 1991.
30 45 60 70 [4] G.V. Trunk. Range resolution of targets using automatic detectors.
Range IEEE Transactions on Aerospace & Electronic Systems, 14(5):750–755,
September, 1978.
[5] G.V. Hansen and J.H. Sawyers. Detectability loss due to greatest-of
selection in a cell averaging CFAR. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace
& Electronic Systems, 16:115–118, 1980.
[6] H. Goldman and I. Bar-David. Analysis and application of the excision
CFAR detector. IEE Proceedings, Radar, Sonar & Navigation, volume
135, Part F, pages 563–575, December, 1988.
[7] H. Goldman. Performance of the excision CFAR detector in the presence
of interferers. IEE Proceedings, Radar, Sonar & Navigation, volume
137, Part F, No. 3, pages 163-171, June, 1990.
[8] M.A. Khalighi and M.M. Nayebi. CFAR processor for ESM systems
applications. IEE Proceedings, Radar, Sonar & Navigation, volume 147,
No. 2, pages 86-92, April, 2000.
of



 

[9] H. Rohling. Radar CFAR thresholding in clutter and multiple target



the designed large window S-CFAR, the normal window OS-


 
situations. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace & Electronic Systems,
CFAR ( ,


), and SO-CFAR (
 

). There




  

19:608–621, July, 1983.

[10] J.T. Rickard and G.M. Dillard. Adaptive detection algorithms for
 

are three groups of targets: ranges [16-20], [27-40], and [46- multiple target situations. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace & Electronic
50], all of the same SNR=18dB. The OS-CFAR detects only Systems, 13(4):338–343, July, 1977.
two samples in the first group, whereas it misses all samples [11] P.P. Gandhi and S.A. Kassam. Analysis of CFAR processors in
nonhomogeneous background. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace &
in other groups. The missing of the second group is due to Electronic Systems, 24(4):427–445, July, 1988.
the fact that the actual number of interfering samples (i.e., 14) [12] M.E. Smith and P.K. Varshney. Intelligent CFAR processor based on
is greater than the nominal number (i.e., 8) the OS-CFAR is data variability. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace & Electronic Systems,
36(3):837–847, July, 2000.
designed to tolerate. The missing of the third group is due [13] S. Hinomas and M. Barkat. Automatic censored CFAR detection for
to the low SNR of the target/interfering samples. In general, nonhomogeneous environments. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace &
as analysed in [11], an SO-CFAR can detect the first and the Electronic Systems, 28(1):286–304, January, 1992.
[14] M.A. Khalighi and M. Bastani. Adaptive CFAR processor for nonhomo-
last samples in a group of targets. However, in this case SO- geneous environments. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace & Electronic
CFAR can only detect three largest samples in the first group. Systems, 36(3):889–897, July, 2000.
The missing of the second group is due to the presence of [15] T.V. Cao. A CFAR thresholding approach based on test cell statistics.
IEEE 2004 Radar Conference Proceedings, pages 349-354, April 2004,
the nearby first and third groups, while the missing of all the Philadelphia, USA.
third group is due to the low SNR of the samples at the right [16] G. Morris and L. Harkness. Airborne Pulsed Doppler Radar Systems.
edge of the group. The designed S-CFAR detects four samples Artech House, USA, 1996.
[17] D.C. Schleher Electronic Warfare in the information Age. Artech House,
in the first group, nearly most of the samples in the second USA, 1999.
group, and up to three samples in the third group.

ISSNIP 2004 172