Given that the "MV" mode has a fixed, known scan pattern, the average phase of the ground clutter return will vary with the speed of the host aircraft.
I think you might be confusing "phase" with "Doppler".
The Doppler frequency profile of the ground clutter will shift according to the speed of the host aircraft, yes.
"Phase" refers to something else. A 10 GHz radar signal like that of a fighter radar will pass through a full 360 degrees of phase in a space of only 3 centimeters - much, much smaller than the swath of earth being illuminated. The ground clutter signal will be the sum of reflected signals from many different points on the ground, and thus the phase
of this combined reflected signal will be something totally random and unrelated to anything. To apply the word "coherent" to this signal makes about as much sense as saying white noise is "coherent" - you can say it, but it's meaningless, because then there doesn't anymore exist any signal in the universe that could be called NOT coherent
And therein lies my objection. By the western definition, Stimson is able to provide concrete illustrative examples of two signals - one coherent, and one non-coherent, and all is understood by the comparison.
This is impossible for the Russian definition, because it says that all
waves are coherent. Without an example of a non-coherent signal to compare against, the word "coherent" becomes devoid of meaning. It's like trying to draw a map of the continents, after you have redefined "land" to also include "water" - or, trying to see stars during the daytime, or a snowman in a blizzard... there's no contrast to separate one from the other.
In radar, coherence is considered in a broader sense, and typically the signals are considered to be coherent if their phase structure is linked and the character of this linkage is known.
This is not a definition, it is a plea for acceptance, at best... or simply nonsense at worst. ("Character of the linkage of the phase structure"
A plea that I must objectively refuse, until Leonov (or anyone who agrees with him) can give a counter-example: what is a non
Any example he gives, I will be able to use his own definition against him, to prove that it's coherent, exactly as they have done with ground clutter - one of the noisiest, most random signals that could be imagined!
Of course you are completely innocent in this overscan, and I don't know what to say... As a self-professed electrical engineer, I feel shamed by this turn of events - that someone should open an Artech House textbook and find gibberish inside! Who are you supposed to believe now, an anonymous, faceless forum poster named after a cartoon character, to correct this mess?? It's a travesty. Bankers, lawyers, doctors, politicians, pilots, economists... these people can tell you hand-waving meaningless feel-good nonsense and I don't mind, that's life. But a degreed engineering professor writing a textbook
?!? Champion of the one cold, hard, true mathematics that never lies?!? Is nothing sacred?!? I can't express the personal shame and humiliation I feel to be in any way associated with this - after all the times I encourage people to research, to read books, and now this. On behalf of my colleagues - I'm sorry. Really I am.