The measured PSLR,
ISLR in the along-track dimension, cross-track dimension and wave-propagation dimension.
The two-dimensional
ISLRs deviate from the theoretical values of -9.72 dB by no more than 0.03 dB.
Performance measure Before AF After AF PSLR (dB) -4.82 -13.72
ISLR (dB) 8.52 -10.64
The simulation results, real raw airborne SAR data experiment and performance analysis verify the validity of the proposed CS-MTMAB imaging algorithm which is lower PSLR and
ISLR, less sampled data, higher resolution, stronger robustness and higher noise immunity than the traditional SAR imaging algorithm.
Axis The proposed method IRW (m) PSLR
ISLR 5 X 0.3395 -8.0101 -3.6270 Y 0.3411 -8.0033 -3.6731 Z 0.47 -13.0660 -9.6461 6 X 0.3368 -8.0261 -3.6598 Y 0.3423 -8.0184 -3.682 Z 0.47 -13.0655 -9.7288 Tar.
Comparing the image quality evolution results listed in Tables 2 and 3, we can see very small difference between the proposed method and conventional chirp scaling method on the image quality measurements, i.e., spatial resolution, PSLR and
ISLR.
Range [[rho].sub.r] PSLR
ISLR (m) (dB) (dB) Target 1 0.89 -13.25 -10.98 Target 7 0.88 -13.22 -10.54 Target 13 0.87 -13.23 -10.48 Target 19 0.88 -13.28 -10.43 Target 25 0.89 -13.26 -10.73 Azimuth [[rho].sub.a] PSLR
ISLR (m) (dB) (dB) Target 1 0.87 -13.12 -10.54 Target 7 0.86 -13.19 -10.11 Target 13 0.86 -13.29 -10.35 Target 19 0.87 -13.11 -10.23 Target 25 0.86 -13.09 -10.62
Detailed PSLR and
ISLR inspections are listed in Table 4.
Subsequently, the imaging qualities of the partial point targets, i.e., PSLR,
ISLR, and IRW, are revealed in Table 3.