This article provides an overview of cognitive radar and cognitive electronic warfare, explaining adaptive sensing, decision-making, and the role of algorithms, simulation, and training.
Radar systems no longer operate in a calm or predictable electromagnetic environment. They face targets that manoeuvre aggressively, try to hide their signatures, or actively interfere with sensing systems. In this context, simply improving hardware performance is no longer enough. What matters increasingly is how well a system can adapt while it is operating.
This shift has led to growing interest in what is commonly called cognitive radar—and, more recently, in extending the same ideas to electronic warfare as a whole.
DEFINITION: Cognitive Radar
Cognitive radar is a radar system that observes its environment and its own performance, reasons about that information, and adapts its behaviour in response.
In practical terms, this means the radar does not rely on a fixed set of waveforms or signal-processing chains. Instead, it uses feedback from received signals—detection quality, tracking stability, clutter levels, interference—to decide how to transmit and process the next pulse. The system forms a closed loop: sense, evaluate, adapt.
Artificial intelligence can support this process, for example by helping to compare alternative configurations or recognise patterns over time. But cognition does not mean handing control to an opaque algorithm. The key idea is adaptive decision-making under uncertainty, not automation for its own sake.
Cognitive radar becomes especially relevant when dealing with targets that change rapidly—highly manoeuvring objects or small, low-observable systems operating in clutter—where no single radar configuration works well in all situations.
Why Radar Alone Is Not Enough
Even the most adaptive radar does not operate in isolation. It shares the electromagnetic spectrum with other sensors, communications systems, interference sources, and deliberate electronic attacks. In many legacy architectures, these functions are still separated into technical and organisational silos. Radar adapts locally, electronic support systems collect data separately, and protective measures follow predefined rules.
These so-called stovepipes limit how far adaptiveness can go. Valuable information is often available but not used in real time, and adaptation happens too slowly to keep pace with a thinking adversary.
This is where the concept naturally expands from cognitive radar to cognitive electronic warfare.
DEFINITION: Cognitive Electronic Warfare
Cognitive Electronic Warfare (Cognitive EW) applies the principles of cognitive radar to the full electromagnetic spectrum. It combines passive observation, reasoning, decision-making, and adaptive response across radar and electronic warfare functions.
A cognitive EW system fuses information from radar performance, radar electronic support, communications monitoring, and environmental context to build an evolving picture of the electromagnetic situation. Based on this picture, it selects and adapts protective and sensing strategies in line with mission goals and survivability constraints.
The key difference from traditional EW is that adaptation is not a predefined feature set. It is a continuous process, driven by feedback and learning, and designed to cope with tactics that were not known at design time.
Adaptation at the Speed of Reality
Recent conflicts have made one thing clear: innovation in the electromagnetic spectrum happens fast—often faster than acquisition, certification, and upgrade cycles. Systems that cannot evolve through software and configuration changes risk becoming predictable or obsolete long before their hardware reaches end of life.
Cognitive EW addresses this gap by shifting emphasis from static capability to adaptive behaviour. Instead of asking what a system can do on day one, the question becomes how well it can continue to perform as threats change.
This places strong demands on algorithms, decision logic, and validation methods. Adaptive behaviour must be effective, explainable, and trusted by operators. It must also be tested thoroughly before deployment.
Algorithms, Simulation, and Digital Twins
Algorithms sit at the heart of cognitive radar and cognitive EW. They are responsible for weighing alternatives, handling uncertainty, and choosing actions that balance detection performance, exposure, and robustness. Developing such algorithms in isolation is not enough.
Simulation and digital twins provide the missing link. By modelling radar systems and electromagnetic environments end to end, digital twins make it possible to explore adaptive strategies, compare outcomes, and understand system behaviour before it is deployed. They also support faster iteration, allowing improvements to be introduced without waiting for new hardware cycles.
SkyRadar’s Perspective
SkyRadar’s work focuses on this algorithmic and simulation layer. The company develops adaptive signal-processing and decision-support algorithms, supported by high-fidelity simulation environments that reflect realistic electromagnetic conditions. These tools are used both for system development and for training engineers and operators to understand adaptive behaviour in practice.
As radar technology continues to evolve—from cognitive sensing toward fully integrated cognitive electronic warfare—the ability to design, simulate, and train adaptive behaviour becomes as important as the sensor itself. The challenge is no longer just seeing targets, but building systems that can learn, adapt, and stay relevant in an electromagnetic environment that never stands still.
Stay Tuned
Stay connected with our ongoing publications on Electronic Warfare and Radar Technology.
