3.

847

Article

Analysis of ADAS Radars with

Electronic Warfare Perspective

Alper Cemil and Mehmet Ünlü

Special Issue
Advanced Sensing Techniques for Autonomous Vehicles and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
(ADAS)
Edited by
Prof. Dr. Javier Alonso Ruiz , Prof. Dr. Iván García Daza, Dr. Carlota Salinas and Dr. Rubén Izquierdo

https://doi.org/10.3390/s22166142
 sensors
Article
Analysis of ADAS Radars with Electronic Warfare Perspective
Alper Cemil 1 and Mehmet Ünlü 2, *

1 Electrical and Electronics, Engineering Department, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University,

06760 Ankara, Turkey
2 Electrical and Electronics, Engineering Department, TOBB University of Economics and Technology,
06510 Ankara, Turkey
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +90-5053131230

Abstract: The increasing demand in the development of autonomous driving systems makes the
employment of automotive radars unavoidable. Such a motivation for the demonstration of fully-
autonomous vehicles brings the challenge of secure driving under high traffic jam conditions. In this
paper, we present the investigation of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) radars from
the perspective of electronic warfare (EW). Close to real life, four ADAS jamming scenarios have
been defined. Considering these scenarios, the necessary jamming power to jam ADAS radars is
calculated. The required jamming Effective Radiated Power (ERP) is −2 dBm to 40 dBm depending
on the jamming scenario. These ERP values are very low and easily realizable. Moreover, the
effect of the jamming has been investigated on the radar detection at radar Range Doppler Map
(RDM) and 2-Dimensional Constant False Alarm Rate (2D-CFAR). Furthermore, the possible jamming
system requirements have been investigated. It is noted that the required jamming system will
not require high-end technology. It is concluded that for the security of automotive driving, the
ADAS radar manufacturer should consider the intentional jamming and related Electronic Counter
Countermeasures (ECCM) features in the design of ADAS radars.

Citation: Cemil, A.; Ünlü, M. Keywords: ADAS radars; electronic warfare; intentional jamming; coherent jamming; ADAS secu-
Analysis of ADAS Radars with rity; DRFM
Electronic Warfare Perspective.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142. https://
doi.org/10.3390/s22166142

Academic Editors: Javier

1. Introduction
Alonso Ruiz, Iván García Daza, Radar, which is an acronym for “Radio Detection and Ranging”, is a detection system
Carlota Salinas and Rubén Izquierdo that uses radio waves to estimate the position and velocity of a target, approximately. The
application areas of the state-of-the-art radar systems include military applications, civilian
Received: 24 June 2022
aviation, navigation, mapping, meteorology, radio astronomy, and medicine [1].
Accepted: 8 August 2022
One of the most important application areas of radar systems in daily life is automotive
Published: 17 August 2022
radars. The automotive radars, together with the other sensors such as light detection and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral ranging (LIDAR), ultrasound, and cameras, constitute the fundamentals of the Advanced
with regard to jurisdictional claims in Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and self-driving automobiles [2]. The millimeter-
published maps and institutional affil- wave (mm-wave) radar systems provide better performance in all weather conditions
iations. than the other sensors used in ADAS [3,4]. For the sake of secure driving and parking, the
automotive radars are the critical element for the detection of objects and obstacles, defining
their position and measuring the relative speeds [5]. Radars, which are capable of providing
long-distance detection, allow safe driving opportunity under risky conditions that decrease
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
visibility of the environment [4,6]. However, such a motivation for the development of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
automotive radars also requires the development of low-cost and compact radar systems,
distributed under the terms and
which can be installed on the vehicles easily reaching a robust performance under all types
conditions of the Creative Commons of working conditions. For this purpose, the silicon technology has solved the problem of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// compact and high-performance system implementation of mm-wave radar systems [7,8].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Fast-chirp/Chirp-sequence Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) wave-
4.0/). form with Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) techniques are commonly used in the

Sensors 2022, 22, 6142. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22166142 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 2 of 15

automotive radars [9]. ADAS radar systems are one of the radar systems that use these
techniques and generally operate in 24 GHz and 77 GHz to achieve higher velocity and
range resolution [5]. The technological advancements in Complementary Metal-Oxide-
Semiconductor (CMOS) Integrated Circuits (IC) that may utilize both analog and digital
circuitry allow demonstration of low-cost and compact radar-on-chip and antenna-on-
chip systems [3].
With the recent developments, the employment of the affordable millimeter-wave
sensors that operate at 77 GHz is expected to become more frequent than ever [3]. Neverthe-
less, this brings the challenge of interference management to avoid any risk in high traffic
jam conditions. The interference problem is addressed by the key players in automotive
radar’s Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). Moreover, there is a growing interest in
intentional jamming of ADAS radars in the literature [10–15]. Security risks and concerns
of sensors used for ADAS were raised, and the possibility of an ADAS radar jamming on
a Tesla Model S was experimentally examined [10]. In [11], a simple low-cost spoofing
device based on modulated backscatter was proposed to demonstrate the ADAS jamming
successfully. In [12] the jammer, based on Software Defined Radio, is used to analyse the
spoofing attacks against ADAS radars. The designed jammer successfully spoofed the
ADAS radars. In [13], the vulnerability of ADAS sensors to spoofing attacks is addressed.
Furthermore, the detection and mitigation method for the spoofing attack is proposed by
applying multiple beamforming. In [14], the importance of security for wireless sensing
and radio environment is highlighted. The study also includes the jamming of ADAS
radars. In [15], the security issues of ADAS radars have been examined considering noise
jamming and spoofing. Considering all these studies, although the ADAS radars are exam-
ined for different jamming conditions, none of these studies have investigated the ADAS
radar for the possible, real-life scenarios for on-purpose jamming. More importantly, the
studies do not examine under what conditions the on-purpose jamming can be attained.
Hence, a detailed investigation is needed, where the jamming scenarios with possible
real-life scenarios are considered in order to determine under what conditions and system
parameters the jamming can be achieved.
In our study, compared to other studies in [10–15], we analyse the ADAS radar
jamming with the traditional Electronic Warfare (EW) perspective. The aim of this study is
to take an attention on intentional jamming of ADAS radars. In this paper, we investigated
the ADAS jamming topic with close to real life scenarios, calculated the necessary Effective
Radiated Power (ERP) depending on scenarios, and further analysed the effects of jamming
on radar detection. While defining the scenarios and jamming engagements envelope, the
features of the ADAS radars such as beamwidth, spatial resolution, and max range have
been considered. For example, because of the spatial resolution capability of LRR, the
scenario is defined without angle separation. In other words, the real echo and ghost echo
are in the line of sight of the jammer and LRR. Moreover, we present the investigation of
performance measures of ADAS radars considering different aspects of jamming systems
such as power levels, antenna, and waveform generators with Digital Radio Frequency
Memory (DRFM). The detail of the proposed results is given in the following sections of
the paper.

2. Intentional Jamming of ADAS Sensors

Despite the fact that the effort in IC technologies pushes the limitations to develop
low-cost and compact radar systems, the performance of the ADAS systems as a measure
of secure driving operation is discussed in the following section of this paper.

2.1. Security of ADAS Sensors

ADAS sensors and their functions are described in [2]. The recent developments
in the IC technology and motivation to develop fully autonomous vehicles increases the
necessity of investigation of possible security issues in automotive radars. An ADAS
consists of different automotive radars which are used for different purposes. A possible
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 3 of 15

security concern for the automotive radars could be intentional jamming. Intentional
jamming is one of the important parts of EW. The goal of this study is to investigate
automotive radars from the EW perspective. We try to find out whether ADAS radars
can be jammed and what could be the key performance feature of the required jamming
system. If jamming is possible, then the necessity of implementation of expensive Electronic
Counter Countermeasures (ECCM) features, like military radars, for the ADAS radars will
be analysed.
EW has been used extensively in the Defense Industry where there are military stan-
dard and military unique requirements are considered. Furthermore, the amount of equip-
ment is limited, and the cost of each equipment is cheaper than the development cost. So,
each equipment should be qualified thoroughly. On the other hand, automotive radars
are produced in mass numbers and the cost of each item is an important factor for the
automotive industry.
There are several studies on unintentional jamming, namely interference, of the ADAS
radars. One of the important references on this topic is the MOSARIM (More Safety for All
by Radar Interference Mitigation) project report [16]. In the MOSARIM project, interference
scenarios and mitigation measures have been investigated thoroughly and evaluated with
respect to their applicability and expected efficiency in automotive radars. Example of
studies on intentional jamming can be found in [10–15]. In [10], Tesla Model S (Bosch
MRR4) was jammed with fix frequency noise, swept frequency noise, spoofing techniques,
and they observed the results from the vehicle display. With the noise jamming techniques,
the front car cannot be detected. With the spoofing techniques, radar provides different
range information. ADAS radar spoofing also investigated in [11–15] and it is observed
that the spoofing techniques would be the most effective jamming type.
The intentional jamming might be considered as an extraordinary case. However, as
the use of autonomous automobiles becomes more common in our life, it might also be
considered by some malicious people/organization to harm someone.

2.2. Electronic Warfare

As radars started to be used for military purposes, the counter measure studies to
detect and deteriorate radars started too. This field is known as EW and is commonly
defined as:
Electronic warfare is defined as any military action that protects the use of the elec-
tromagnetic (EM) spectrum, which includes the entire radio frequency (RF) spectrum, the
infrared (IR) spectrum, visible spectrum, and ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, as well as direct
energy for friendly purposes while denying it to the enemy [17]. Electronic warfare has
three major subdivisions: Electronic Attack (EA), Electronic Protection (EP), and Electronic
Support (ES) [1]. For more details on EW topic refer [1,18].
Radar Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) and ECCM were investigated in [19] where
the historical development of ECM and ECCM was explained, and some major techniques
were described. Depending on the jamming source, ECM techniques can be grouped as
noise, repeater, and transponder jamming. Noise jamming is not a coherent jamming.
With the development of ECCM features, these kinds of jamming techniques are no more
effective for modern radars, which have coherent processing capability [18]. In the repeater
jamming, victim radar signals are used for jamming after amplification and frequency
modulation. Transponder Jamming is achieved by using a memory device that helps to
record the incoming radar signal and regenerate it when needed. Initially, Frequency
Memory Loop (FML) was used but it could not provide real coherent waveform, then
DRFM was invented. DRFM can record the radar signal in a digital domain and modulate
the signal, in time, frequency, and amplitude as desired and regenerate back when needed.
Both repeater and transponder (with DRFM) jamming provide coherent jamming, so
jamming will be very effective [20].
EW has been mainly considered for the military domain. If there would be a possibility
of an intentional jamming against ADAS radars, considering the EW while developing an
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 4 of 15

automotive radar would make them more robust. For an automotive radar design, EW
is first to be considered in the EP domain to make them robust against intentional and
unintentional jammers. Then, the detection of the jamming is the next step to counteract to
the jamming.
As the ADAS radars apply coherent processing, jamming techniques also need to
be coherent. Therefore, DRFM-based Coherent False Target (CFT) and Correlated Range
and Velocity Gate Pull Off/In (RVGPO/I) techniques have been investigated on one of the
ADAS radars, i.e., Long-Range Radar (LRR). The detail of CFT and RVGPO/I can be found
in [1–18] and these techniques are considered as spoofing techniques.

2.3. DRFM
The DRFM is the indispensable part of the modern ECM systems as it provides the
ability to generate coherent jamming waveforms which is a crucial means to jam advanced
radars. DRFMs have been used in jammer systems for several decades now.
The DRFM samples incoming radar signals by using a high-speed Analog to Digital
Converter (ADC), store-sampled data in the RF memory, applies the desired jamming
modulation, and regenerates the digital signal into the analog signal by using a high-speed
Digital to Analog Converter (DAC). The DRFM provides the ability to manipulate the
incoming and stored signals in the amplitude, frequency, and phase to generate a wide
variety of deception signals [20].

2.4. Jamming ADAS Radar Systems

To analyze the possibility of the jamming of the ADAS radars, some scenarios are
defined against the LRR whereas the LRR has a longer range than any other radar in the
ADAS which increases the jamming engagement time and therefore the possibility of being
jammed. For short range radars, the jamming engagement time would be short. Jamming
of the ADAS radars have been investigated in the following steps:
• Step-1: Define the assumptions and LRR parameters used on the analysis.
• Step-2: Calculate the necessary jamming power for the desired Jamming-to-Signal
Ratio (JSR) on the radar detection.
• Step-3: Define jamming scenarios.
• Step-4: Investigate the jamming scenarios to find the necessary jamming power.
• Step-5: Investigate the effects of jamming on radar detection at radar Range Doppler
Map (RDM) and 2-Dimensional Constant False Alarm Rate (2D-CFAR).
• Step-6: Analyze the possible jamming system.

2.4.1. Step-1: Define the Assumptions and LRR Parameters Used on the Analysis
Important parameters of LRR used in the analysis are defined in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. LRR parameters [21].

LRR Parameters Values

LRR max range 250 m
Tx/Rx antenna max gain (single element) 20–25 dBi
Tx/Rx antenna beamwidth (−3 dB) Azimuth ± 5◦
Tx power ERP (peak) 30–40 dBm (40 dBm is used here)
Rx typical Noise Figure 15 dB
Rx IF typical noise floor −99 dBm/MHz
Rx IF bandwidth (After signal processing) 500 kHz–25 MHz
Antenna polarization Horizontal, Vertical, Diagonal
Interference, clutter removal technique CFAR
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 5 of 15

Table 2. Radar Cross Section values [22].

Object RCS Values

Automobile 19–25 dBm2 (20 dBm2 used here)
Pedestrian −3 dBm2

Assumptions considered in the analysis are mentioned below:

• The LRR uses linear polarization as referred in Table 1. In case the orientation of the
linear polarization is not known, the jammer must use circular polarization to improve
the jamming chance with the loss of 3 dB.
• FMCW radars have high processing and modulation gains, so it is difficult to jam them
with noncoherent jamming methods. The best jamming method is to use a DRFM to
achieve a coherent jamming.
• For effective jamming, the jammer has to monitor radar parameters. In case there
is a parameter update on the radar, then the jammer has to update the jamming
parameters. Hence, the jammer needs a receiving cycle (look-through) and during
that time the jamming could be interrupted which reduces the effects of the jamming.
In this study, it is assumed that the jammer can receive and transmit simultaneously
without any interruptions so that the jammer can follow radar parameters. For that
purpose, the required isolation between jammer receiver and transmitter is calculated
and presented below.
• The jamming power, detected by the victim radar antenna, is analyzed for four differ-
ent scenarios initially. It is assumed that the jamming signals, which are generated by a
DRFM and the jammer signals are up to date, are processed by the radar like real object
echo signals. For one scenario, radar detection and processing with RDM and 2D-
CFAR are investigated to inspect the expected outcome on the radar detection process.
• The DRFM memory size is not considered a problem for the jamming, especially for
long pulses.
• The propagation delay of the jammer is not considered. There is a propagation delay
in the jamming system. So, the jamming signal arrives later than the real echo signal.
If the jammer can follow the radar parameter, with the appropriate timing, this delay
can be compensated by the jammer.
• Because of the spatial diversity of a MIMO radar, it is difficult to jam them [23].
For RVGPO/I techniques, the jammer is assumed to be in the same angle with the
manipulated real target.
• Compared to the radar signal, which matches with the radar receiver setting, the
jammer signal has a certain amount of jamming losses. Jamming losses for a station-
ary jammer is 12 dB and for a mobile jammer, 9 dB are considered because of the
following reasons:
(a) It is assumed that the stationary jammer stays on the roadside, and they are
on the edge of the −3 dB beamwidth. For a mobile jammer case, no loss is
considered as they might be on the boresight of the jammer antenna.
(b) MIMO radars can generate simultaneously multiple transmit (Tx) beams [24].
Maximum coherency is achieved when all Tx channels transmit simultaneously
using the same bandwidth [9]. However, we assumed that all channels transmit
in different bandwidths to consider the worst case for the required jamming
power. To jam all these signals simultaneously, jamming power split to four
which results in 6 dB loss in the jammer output.
(c) The polarization loss is taken as 3 dB.
The loss will be implemented in the related formula.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 6 of 15

2.4.2. Step-2: Calculate the Necessary Jamming Power for the Desired JSR on the
Radar Detection
To calculate the necessary jamming Effective Radiated Power (ERP) for the related
jamming scenarios, one-way and two-way Friis’ transmission equations are used [18] with
the parameters defined in Tables 1 and 2. One-way Friis’ transmission Equation (1) is used
to find the received jamming signal power PrJ , and two-way Friis’ transmission equation is
used find the received radar signal power from the object echo PrR .

PrJ = (PJ GJ )/(4πRJ 2 ) Ae = (ERPJ ) (λ2 GR )/(4πRJ )2 (1)

where Ae is the effective aperture area of the radar, PJ GJ is the ERP of the jammer, λ is the
wavelength of the radar signal, GR is the gain of the radar. RJ is the distance of the jammer
to the radar.

PrR = (PR GR σ)/(4πRO 2 )2 Ae = (ERPR σ λ2 GR )/((4π)3 (RO )4 ) (2)

where PR GR is the ERP of the radar, RO is the distance of the object to the radar, and σ is
the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the object.

JSR = (ERPJ 4πRO 4 )/(ERPR σ Rj 2 ) (3)

ERPJ = (JSR ERPR σ Rj 2 )/(4πRO 4 ) (4)

Equations (1) and (2) are used to find the necessary JSR value as defined in Equation
(3). To find the necessary ERPJ , Equation (3) is reorganized in Equation (4). The loss factors
mentioned above would be considered in the formula to obtain more realistic results.
Although the key factor in effective jamming technique is to keep the JSR as high as
possible, the JSR ratio can be reduced to the 3 to 6 dB range for an effective ECM technique
by using the coherent jamming waveforms as long as the jamming power is placed in
the appropriate tracking gate of the victim radar [1,25]. During the dwell portion of the
RVGPO/I techniques, a high JSR will increase the chance of stealing the gate. To be on the
safe side, 10 dB JSR is considered for RVGPO/I techniques in our calculation.
For CFT techniques power calculation, the victim radars Minimum Discernable Signal
(MDS) is an important parameter to consider. Whenever there is a signal over the MDS
level, this could be considered as an object. MDS values can be predicted as typical noise
floor plus Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) of the radar. The SNR is dynamically set by the
CFAR algorithm. However, for this study, JSR = 1 is taken to be on the safe side. This
approach would require more jamming power.

2.4.3. Step-3: Define Jamming Scenarios

The following five scenarios were investigated for the LRR jamming:

Scenario-1
In this scenario, a realistic false pedestrian echo is aimed to be generated with applying
a CFT jamming technique by a jammer as shown in Figure 1 where there is no real object.
However, with the successful jamming techniques, the radar will observe a false pedestrian
or automobile echo.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 7 of 15

Figure 1. Scenario-1. A realistic false pedestrian echo generation by CFT.

Scenario-2
In this scenario, an RVGPO/I technique is applied by the jammer located in the
automobile which is in front of the radar as shown in Figure 2. The aim is to manipulate
the range and velocity information of the own platform detected by the LRR.

Figure 2. Scenario-2. An RVGPO/I technique for spoofing.

Scenario-3
In this scenario, an RVGPO/I technique is applied by the jammer as shown in Figure 3.
In contrast to the Scenario-1, in Scenario-3, there is a real pedestrian, and the aim is to
manipulate the parameters of the pedestrian which is measured by the radar.

Figure 3. Scenario-3. An RVGPO/I technique for spoofing the real pedestrian echo.

Scenario-4
In this scenario, an RVGPO/I technique is applied by the jammer as shown in Figure 4.
There is a real automobile, and the aim is to manipulate the parameters of the automobile
which is measured by the radar.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 8 of 15

Figure 4. Scenario-4. An RVGPO/I technique for spoofing the real automobile echo.

2.4.4. Step-4: Investigate the Jamming Scenarios to Find the Necessary Jamming Power
Required jammer ERP values with respect to the jamming range for each scenario
are shown in Figure 5a,b, Figures 6 and 7a,b, respectively. Figure 5b shows Scenario-1
with a ghost automobile echo generation. For all scenarios, except for Scenario-2, the
required jammer ERP increases with the increasing jamming range. Contrary to the others,
in Scenario-2, the jamming and the radar signal has the same range. For the radar signal
power, the range has inverse 4th power factor and for the jammer signal power, the range
has inverse 2nd power factor. Therefore, as the range increases, the required jamming
power decreases for the desired JSR value.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Jammer ERP versus range of the jammer for Scenario-1. (a) For the pedestrian false echo
scenario; (b) For the automobile ghost echo scenario.

Figure 6. (Scenario-2) Jammer ERP versus range of the jammer where jammer is on the target object
and applying RVGPO/I.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 9 of 15

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Jammer ERP versus range of the jammer. (a) Scenario-3: The pedestrian is at 10 m; (b)
Scenario-4: The automobile is at 50 m.

Depending on the jamming scenario conditions, the required jamming ERP is changing
−
from −2 dBm to 40 dBm. These ERP values are very low and easily realizable.

2.4.5. Step-5: Investigate the Effects of Jamming on Radar Detection at Radar RDM and
2D-CFAR
Scenario-2 is chosen for further analysis to investigate the effects of jamming on the
RDM and 2D-CFAR detection. Parameters of the scenario are defined in Table 3.

Table 3. Scenario parameters for RDM and 2D-CFAR detection.

Parameters Values
Relative distance of the real object 50 m
Relative distance of the false echo generated by jamming 45 m
The speed of radar platform 100 km/h
The speed of real object 90 km/h
The speed of false echo 85 km/h
Desired JSR 10 dB

In the scenario, parameters of the LRR CFAR are defined as follows:

•• Two-dimensional CFAR detector
•• Probability of False Alarm Rate (FAR) is %0.000000001 (1 × 10–−9 )
•• Guard band size is 3 cells
• Training band size is 10 cells
•
The LRR radar signal waveform used in simulation is shown in Figure 8. The FMCW
signal is chosen as a linear ramp for simplicity.
The automobile in front of the radar is detected by the LRR RDM and 2D-CFAR are
shown in Figure 9a,b, respectively. The range and velocity (which have a relative speed of
10 km/h) are measured correctly.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 10 of 15

Figure 8. The LRR transmit signal waveform.

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. No jamming. (a) Range-Doppler Map; (b) 2D-CFAR Detection.

Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 11 of 15

When the jammer on the front automobile starts jamming, the LRR detects both
jamming and echo signals. At first, the JSR is considered as 0 dB which means the jamming
signal has the same power level of the echo signal. Figure 10a,b shows the RDM and
2D-CFAR detection, respectively, when the JSR is 1. The real echo is in the 50 m range, and
the 10 km/h relative speed and ghost echo are in the 40 m range and 15 km/h relative
speed in both RDM and 2D-CFAR figures.

(a)

(b)

Figure 10. Jamming with JSR = 1. (a) Range-Doppler Map; (b) 2D-CFAR Detection.

When the jamming power level is increased to JSR = 10 dB, the LRR increases the
detection threshold, and the real object could not be detected as the jamming signal has
more power. Figure 11a,b shows the RDM and the 2D-CFAR detection, respectively, when
the JSR is 10 dB. In this case, the real echo could not be detected by the CFAR. Only ghost
echo is detected at a range of 40 m and relative speed of 15 km/h.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 12 of 15

(a)

(b)

Figure 11. Jamming with JSR = 10. (a) Range-Doppler Map; (b) 2D-CFAR Detection.

The RDM and the 2D-CFAR processing of the LRR shows the effect of jamming on
the radar.

2.4.6. Step-6: Analyze the Possible Jamming System

ERP: Considering these four scenarios, the required ERP is changing from −2 dBm to
40 dBm depending on the jamming scenario. With high gain antenna of 30 dBi and 10 mW
transmitter, 40 dBm could be achieved. This shows that the required power level for the
jammer is very low.
Sensitivity: The skin paint of the radar signal for different range values is shown in
Figure 12a. The lowest value of the skin paint for a 500 m range is −54 dBm. Considering
the worst-case conditions, a receiver with a 5 GHz instantaneous bandwidth (76–81 GHz)
and 15 dB Noise Figure, the noise floor of a receiver is −62 dBm. To achieve −54 dBm
sensitivity, there is still enough margin for SNR which is 8 dB. Polarization and atmospheric
loss are not considered here.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 13 of 15

(a) (b)

Figure 12. (a) The skin paint of the radar signal; (b) Required isolation level between the Rx and Tx
of the jammer.

Isolation: The value of isolation between the transmitter and the receiver provides an
important information about the interoperability of Tx and Rx. If the isolation is bigger
than the maximum Tx power minus the minimum Rx sensitivity, then there would be no
interoperability problem. Therefore, Tx and Rx can operate at the same time and same
frequency without interfering with each other. So, the ECM system can jam the radar with
up-to-date radar signal information.
As shown in Figure 12b, the isolation requirement is less than 85 dB. To achieve
85 dB isolation, highly directive and carefully separated Tx and Rx antennas and isolation
material can be used.

3. Results
–
In this paper we present the investigation of jamming scenarios − and their possible
effects on the ADAS radar applications. Our goal was to analyse the possibility of ADAS
jamming and the required jammer features. In contrast with other works in the literature
that investigate the ADAS jamming, we analyse the jamming system requirements and the
effect of the jamming on the ADAS radar on the radar detection i.e., RDM and the 2D-CFAR
detection. All possible jamming scenarios were investigated with coherent ECM techniques.
While defining scenarios, LRR features and close to real-life conditions were taken into
s- ex-
account. Scenario analyses are given in Table 4. Based on the described scenarios and
analysis, it can be inferred that the ADAS radars can be jammed as also observed in [10–13].
The required jamming system features are not on the edge of the current technology and
d.
are easy to implement. To jam the ADAS radars, even −2 dBm ERP could be enough
depending on the scenario. Moreover, the jamming power can easily be increased, which
might result in a dramatic result on the ADAS radars performance.
We provided an analysis of the ADAS radar jamming phenomena with the EW per-
spective. It is known that the ADAS radars can be jammed. However, how and with what
sort of jamming system the ADAS jamming can be achieved is not clear. We concluded
that the ADAS jamming could be easily achieved. As the advancement on EW resulted in
the implementation of ECCM features on the military radars, it is expected that the ADAS
radars will also implement the ECCM features to make them less vulnerable to intentional
jamming. On the other hand, implementation of complex ECCM features make the ADAS
– radars more expensive. Even the driving factor in the commercial market is costly, and the
safety concerns always comes first then the cost. Then, it is expected that the ADAS radar
manufacturers will soon consider the intentional jamming and implement radar ECCM
features to minimize the vulnerability of the ADAS radars against intentional jamming.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 14 of 15

Table 4. Scenario analysis.

Scenario Expected Result Effect Level

False echo is detected by the LRR, and
Driving quality reduced. Depending on
1. Generate false pedestrian/automobile the ADAS is expected to act. Depending
the circumstances, an accident might
echo by CFT on the false echo parameters, emergency
happen.
brake might be applied.
Driving quality reduced.
RVGPO: The LRR perceives longer free
space in front of the automobile, in case
The real object information could not be the detection threshold increased, and the
detected. Depending on the jamming real object cannot be detected anymore.
direction: In this scenario jammer platform can also
2. Deception jamming with RVGPO/I RVGPO: The LRR measures farther be affected so it would be considered as
distance than the real value. not a realistic scenario.
RVGPI: The LRR measures shorter RVGPI: The LRR perceives shorter free
distance than the real value. space in front of the automobile, and act
to decrease the speed of the platform.
Depending on the circumstances, an
accident may happen.
Jamming signal with higher JSR,
increases the detection threshold and
hide the real echo. If the techniques are
effective, then the radar will detect only
RVGPO: The LRR perceives longer free
the jammer signal. Depending on the
space in front of the automobile, in case
3–4. Deception Jamming. Manipulate the jamming signal, the LRR provides wrong
the detection threshold increased, and the
measured radar parameters for the information about the
real object cannot be detected anymore.
pedestrian/automobile which is already pedestrian/automobile.
In this scenario jammer platform can also
detected by the radar. RVGPO: The LRR measures the
be affected so it would be considered as
pedestrian/automobile farther and did
not a realistic scenario.
not react in time.
RVGPI: The LRR measures shorter
distance than the pedestrian/automobile
and apply emergency brake.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.C. and M.Ü.; methodology, A.C. and M.Ü.; software,
A.C.; validation, A.C.; formal analysis, A.C.; investigation, A.C. and M.Ü.; resources, A.C.; data
curation, A.C. and M.Ü.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C. and M.Ü.; writing—review and
editing, M.Ü.; visualization, A.C. and M.Ü.; supervision, M.Ü. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Adamy, D.L. EW 101: A First Course in Electronic Warfare, 1st ed.; Artech House Publishers: London, UK, 2001; Volume 101.
2. Kukkala, V.K.; Tunnell, J.; Pasricha, S.; Bradley, T. Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems: A Path Toward Autonomous Vehicles.
IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag. 2018, 7, 18–25. [CrossRef]
3. Bilik, I.; Longman, O.; Villeval, S.; Tabrikian, J. The Rise of Radar for Autonomous Vehicles: Signal Processing Solutions and
Future Research Directions. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 2019, 36, 20–31. [CrossRef]
4. Zhou, T.; Yang, M.; Jiang, K.; Wong, H.; Yang, D. MMW Radar-Based Technologies in Autonomous Driving: A Review. Sensors
2020, 20, 7283. [CrossRef]
5. Patole, S.M.; Torlak, M.; Wang, D.; Ali, M. Automotive radars: A review of signal processing techniques. IEEE Signal Process. Mag.
2017, 34, 22–35. [CrossRef]
6. Jones, W. Keeping cars from crashing. IEEE Spectr. 2001, 38, 40–45. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 6142 15 of 15

7. Kobashi, S.; Kurono, Y.; Shono, M.; Shirakawa, K.; Isaji, O.; Fujimoto, M.; Okubo, N. 3D-Scan Radar for automotive application.
In Proceedings of the 19th ITS World Congress, Vienna, Austria, 22–26 October 2012; pp. 3–7.
8. Gresham, I.; Jain, N.; Budka, T.; Alexanian, A.; Kinayman, N.; Ziegner, B.; Brown, S.; Staecker, P. A compact manufacturable
76-77-GHz radar module for commercial ACC applications. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2001, 49, 44–58. [CrossRef]
9. Hakobyan, G.; Yang, B. High-performance automotive radar: A review of signal processing algorithms and modulation schemes.
IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 2019, 36, 32–44. [CrossRef]
10. Yan, C.; Xu, W.; Liu, J. Can you trust autonomous vehicles: Contactless attacks against sensors of self-driving vehicle. Comput. Sci.
2016, 24, 109. [CrossRef]
11. Lazaro, A.; Porcel, A.; Lazaro, M.; Villarino, R.; Girbau, D. Spoofing Attacks on FMCW Radars with Low-Cost Backscatter Tags.
Sensors 2022, 22, 2145. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Komissarov, R.; Wool, A. Spoofing attacks against vehicular FMCW radar. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2104.13318.
13. Kapoor, P.; Vora, A.; Kang, K.-D. Detecting and Mitigating Spoofing Attack Against an Automotive Radar. In Proceedings of the
2018 IEEE 88th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall), Chicago, IL, USA, 27–30 August 2018; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
14. Furqan, H.M.; Solaija, M.S.J.; Türkmen, H.; Arslan, H. Wireless communication, sensing, and REM: A security perspective. IEEE
Open J. Commun. Soc. 2021, 2, 287–321. [CrossRef]
15. Yeh, E.R.; Choi, J.; Prelcic, N.G.; Bhat, C.R.; Heath, R.W., Jr. Security in Automotive Radar and Vehicular Networks. Microw. J.
2016, 60, 148–164.
16. Kunert, M. The EU project MOSARIM: A general overview of project objectives and conducted work. In Proceedings of the 2012
9th European Radar Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 31 October–2 November 2012.
17. Deparment of the Army. Electronic Warfare; Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS)-Armed Forces of the United States of America: Washington,
DC, USA, 2012.
18. De Martino, A. Introduction to Modern EW Systems; Artech House Publishers: London, UK, 2012.
19. Neng-Jing, L.; Yi-Ting, Z. A survey of radar ECM and ECCM. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 1995, 31, 1110–1120. [CrossRef]
20. Roome, S. Digital radio frequency memory. Electron. Commun. Eng. J. 1990, 2, 147–153. [CrossRef]
21. ECC Report, 262. Studies Related to Surveillance Radar Equipment Operating in the 76 to 77 GHz Range for Fixed Transport
Infrastructure. (Approved 27 January 2017). Available online: http://spectrum.welter.fr/html/spectrum-cept-ecc-reports.html
(accessed on 23 June 2022).
22. Kamel, E.B.; Peden, A.; Pajusco, P. RCS modeling and measurements for automotive radar applications in the W band. In
Proceedings of the 2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP), Paris, France, 19–24 March 2017.
[CrossRef]
23. Song, X.; Willett, P.; Zhou, S. Jammer detection and estimation with MIMO radar. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference Record of
the Forty Sixth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (ASILOMAR), Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 4–7 November
2012; pp. 1312–1316. [CrossRef]
24. Pfeffer, C.; Feger, R.; Wagner, C.; Stelzer, A. FMCW MIMO Radar System for Frequency-Division Multiple TX-Beamforming.
IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2013, 61, 4262–4274. [CrossRef]
25. Davidson, K.; Bray, J. Understanding Digital Radio Frequency Memory Performance in Countermeasure Design. Appl. Sci. 2020,
10, 4123. [CrossRef]