Table 1.

Comparison between widely used radar implementations and the partially coherent radar

Inherent differences between common radar technologies and Partially Coherent Radar
	Pulsed radar	FMCW radar	Noise radar	Partially coherent radar
Range resolution dependence on bandwidth	$\frac{c}{2*BW}$	$~\frac{c}{2*BW}$ Or even worse when using windowing techniques	$~\frac{c}{2*BW}$	✓ Free of bandwidth limitations
Short-range target detection	Requires large bandwidth for short range detection, and thus fast ADC (analog-to-digital converter)35	✓ Does not suffer from blind range due to its simultaneous transmit and receive scheme29,35	Requires large bandwidth for short range detection, and thus very fast ADC, or low-dynamic range14,35	✓ Does not require large bandwidth due to smart correlation detection algorithm
Long-range target detection	Demands compression techniques to be used for long range, and thus use larger bandwidth, making it more vulnerable to manmade noise36	Has a built in trade-off between range and resolution, which cannot be improved29	✓ Has no restrictions on range	✓ Has no restrictions on range
Exploiting Doppler effect for measurement of moving targets	✓ Widely used to extract Doppler information. Fast targets do not severely affect range accuracy	✓ Widely used to extract Doppler information. Fast targets do not severely affect range accuracy	Cannot be used for high speed targets37	✓ Can be used to extract Doppler in the same manner as pulsed and FMCW radars. Fast targets (over 200 km/h) can affect performance and require smarter algorithms
Other limitations/advantages		Leakage from FMCW signal can impair the receiver especially at low received signal levels. Phase noise degrades performance35	Most applications require precise controlled delay lines, which have high insertion loss and are frequency depended38	✓ Can be used even in sub 1 GHz implementations