Based on a comprehensive study of existing evaluation criteria for electronic interference effects, this paper conducts an in-depth analysis of the characteristics of each criterion. The power criterion and information criterion are specifically applied to evaluate suppressive and deceptive interference, respectively, while the probability criterion is used in certain specific systems. Compared to efficiency criteria, the evaluation of anti-interference capability and system performance demonstrates greater accuracy and practical value.
Keywords: electronic interference; effect evaluation; electronic countermeasure
In today's complex electromagnetic environment, high-tech electronic warfare is becoming the core of future conflicts. Evaluating the effectiveness of jamming is a central issue in electronic countermeasures and plays a key role in the research and development of electronic warfare equipment. It provides objective and accurate assessments of the operational effectiveness of such systems, thereby improving their interference or anti-interference capabilities.
Electronic interference effects refer to the combined impact of direct or indirect damage caused to electronic devices, detection systems, and operators after being subjected to interference from other electronic systems. Therefore, when an electronic system is targeted with interference, the resulting effect can reflect the level of damage, degree of disruption, and harm to the operator. If the interference reduces the locking probability of a detecting device below a desired threshold, or causes the tracking error to exceed the expected limit, or increases the error rate beyond a set threshold, it is considered effective jamming. This type of interference effectively demonstrates whether the interference has achieved its intended purpose.
Various evaluation criteria have been proposed in the field of electronic interference effect assessment, including the power criterion, information criterion, probability criterion, and efficiency criterion. These criteria are developed based on the nature of the interference signals and the electronic systems they target. Some are grounded in different anti-jamming measures, others focus on engineering feasibility, while some are theoretically robust and offer system-wide guidance. However, there is currently no universally accepted standard or widely applicable evaluation framework that consistently achieves desired results in practical applications. This is because existing criteria are often tailored to the attributes of the electronic countermeasures system, the project’s objectives, and prior knowledge from real-world scenarios. As a result, each criterion offers a unique perspective.
To address this, this paper thoroughly analyzes and discusses each criterion, clarifying its attributes and applicability, and providing valuable insights for selecting suitable evaluation methods in actual electronic warfare scenarios.
1. Power Criteria and Information Guidelines
Based on the effectiveness of anti-jamming measures within electronic countermeasures systems, researchers have introduced the power criterion and information criterion. These criteria assess whether the system can effectively suppress interference or if the information obtained after suppression contains significant errors or losses. They are typically measured using a suppression coefficient, which represents the ratio of the minimum interference signal power required at the receiver input to the power of the countermeasure signal received by the system.
When interference disrupts an electronic system, the loss of effective information is a primary concern. Common methods include signal deviation, active simulation, transmission of disturbed segments, and signal coverage. If the characteristics of the interfering signal match those of the target system, the amount of lost information increases significantly. Conversely, if the characteristics do not align, the loss may be minimal or even nonexistent. Thus, the effectiveness of interference depends on the specific type of electronic countermeasure being used.
The power criterion, also known as the signal-to-noise ratio criterion, is defined by the suppression coefficient K, which reflects the ratio of the minimum interference power Pj at the receiver input to the target echo signal power Ps at the input of the countermeasure system. Mathematically, this is expressed as:
According to formula (1), when the same interference is applied, a higher suppression coefficient K indicates a stronger interference signal power Pj, leading to more effective jamming. On the contrary, a lower K suggests weaker interference. Therefore, the suppression coefficient is an effective indicator of the system’s resistance to interference and is particularly useful for evaluating suppressive interference effects.
The power criterion is currently the most widely used method for assessing anti-jamming performance. Its main features include:
(1) It reflects the minimum interference-to-signal ratio required to achieve a certain level of interference effect. While this makes it abstract for direct evaluation of the target, it is more suitable for assessing the system’s anti-jamming capability.
(2) In practical applications, accurately measuring the suppression coefficient K is challenging, making it less practical for real-world use.
(3) The standard power criterion is best suited for evaluating suppressive interference effects in electronic countermeasures.
Another approach to evaluating interference effects is through the lens of information loss, which forms the basis of the information criterion. This method evaluates the impact of interference by analyzing changes in the amount of target information before and after the interference. For example, it may consider how the observation space changes before and after the interference. In some technical specifications of electronic interference devices, the efficiency criterion is also used to describe the effectiveness of the interference.
Shenzhen Essenvape Technology Co., Ltd. , https://www.essenvape.com