Software solutions
BUILDING RADAR ARCHITECTURES THAT SCALE
Radar is increasingly associated with software-defined capabilities, adaptive sensing and digital control. Yet its evolution is also being driven by how electronic architectures manage control, timing and signal integrity as systems become more complex. As channel counts and performance demands increase, semiconductor integration is becoming increasingly important. Here, Ross Turnbull, director of Business Development at Swindon Silicon Systems, explains how application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) architectures are shaping next-generation radar systems.
R
adar systems are becoming increasingly complex. Higher-resolution sensing, greater bandwidth and multi-function operation are driving up channel counts, while platforms impose tighter constraints on size, weight and power. As active electronically scanned array (AESA) architectures scale, maintaining reliable timing, signal integrity and control across thousands of channels becomes a significant design challenge. In an AESA radar, beam steering depends on controlling relative phase, and often amplitude, across antenna elements. Each element or sub-array has a transmit/receive (T/R) module containing dedicated RF circuitry. The transmit path includes phase and amplitude control, a driver stage and FET-based power amplifier, while the receive path incorporates limiting and low-noise amplification.
MAINTAINING COHERENCE AT SCALE Characterising a channel is no longer simply a matter of amplitude and frequency response. Timing alignment, phase stability, channel-to- channel skew, temperature sensitivity, supply variation and electromagnetic interference (EMI) all need to be considered.
Even small mismatches can affect beamforming. Phase or gain errors can produce beam-pointing errors and elevated sidelobes, reducing detection and tracking margins. Timing errors that vary with
40
temperature or duty cycle can be particularly difficult to address through calibration alone. Highly integrated architectures can help manage these effects by incorporating functions such as loopback, background phase and gain trimming, and digital compensation for analogue drift over temperature and lifetime. FPGAs remain valuable where flexibility is important, particularly at moderate channel counts or where requirements are still evolving. However, scaling FPGA-centric architectures can introduce additional challenges. Signal chains may depend on separate converters, memory and driver stages, while interfaces and clock domains add propagation delay, skew and jitter. As channel density and bandwidth increase, the limiting factor is therefore not necessarily processing capability. It can instead become the complexity of distributing signals reliably and maintaining coherence between devices.
THE GATE DRIVER AS A CRITICAL BOUNDARY
The gate-driver stage illustrates this challenge particularly well. Positioned between digital control and the transmit FET, it translates a digital command into repeatable electrical behaviour before RF power is generated. Small variations here can propagate directly into transmit performance.
In a conventional multi-device implementation,
control signals may originate in an FPGA before passing through I/O routing, isolation and other interfaces to reach the driver and FET gate. Each boundary introduces opportunities for differences in timing and electrical behaviour. An ASIC can consolidate more of this functionality. This lets one device carry the digital interface, control logic and multiple output drivers needed to match the FET characteristics, rather than spreading these functions across separate components. Channel-to-channel timing, drive strength and switching behaviour can consequently be managed within a common architecture. Gate drivers sit close to large switching currents and steep dV/dt transitions, an environment where even small inconsistencies between channels are hard to avoid. Maintaining consistent behaviour across many discrete channels becomes increasingly difficult, so reducing device boundaries can make timing- critical functions easier to engineer and verify.
September 2026 Instrumentation Monthly
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
