## 3 Simulation and Analysis
### Result Analysis  
For ease of description, in this paper, the marine areas around the MGF for the experiment were denoted as different levels according to their value of \(P_{ident}\) as shown in Table 5.  
As illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, the proposed method effectively calculates and visualizes the \(P_{ident}\) distribution around the MGFs for both sea-skimming and high-altitude scenarios.  
Combining Figures 5 and 6 and Table 4, it can be observed that, the Level I and II regions always mirror the MGF's outline but are stretched along the radar's azimuth bearing. For example, when the radar is north of MGFs (0\({}^{\circ}\) azimuth) in Figures 5b and 6b, the Level I and II regions extend along the \(X\)-axis as \"enlarged copies\" of both narrow-shaped island and triangular-shaped island; when radar moves east (90\({}^{\circ}\) azimuth) in Figures 5d and 6d, they lengthen along the \(Y\)-axis. These are consistent with physical expectations and provide an initial validation of the proposed method.  
Furthermore, Given the same distance and azimuth angle between the MGF and the radar, the changes in elevation angle caused by the decrease in \(Z_{S}\) (from high-altitude to sea-skimming) also result in the shapes of the Level I and Level II regions extending towards the azimuth direction of the aircraft. This indicates that the threat level of the marine areas around the MGF is enhanced, consistent with the radar detection blind zones caused by MGF occlusion for sea-skimming aircraft, further demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method in this paper.  
In addition to the overall result, we selected marine location points \(T_{a}\) (0.6 km, \(-\)0.8 km) for the narrow-shaped island and \(T_{b}\) (0.6 km, \(-\)0.6 km) for the triangular-shaped island as  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Value of \(P_{ident}\)** & **Level of Region** \\ \hline \(P_{ident}\) \(<\) 0.1 & Level I \\ 0.9 \(\geq P_{ident}\) \(\geq\) 0.1 & Level II \\ \(P_{ident}\) \(>\) 0.9 & Level III \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Marine area level.  
Figure 6: Distribution of \(P_{dist}\) in marine areas under different radar positions for the triangular-shaped island. (**a**) When regarding \(S_{1}\) as radar position (sea-skimming); (**b**) When regarding \(S_{2}\) as radar position (high-altitude); (**c**) When regarding \(S_{3}\) as radar position (sea-skimming); (**d**) When regarding \(S_{4}\) as radar position (high-altitude); (**e**) When regarding \(S_{5}\) as radar position (sea-skimming); (**f**) When regarding \(S_{6}\) as radar position (high-altitude).  
individual cases since they were always within the LOS of radar at the point of S\({}_{1}\), S\({}_{2}\), S\({}_{5}\), and S\({}_{6}\). The corresponding probabilities were extracted and shown in Table 6.  
From Table 6, it can be seen that, even for \(T_{a}\) and \(T_{b}\) which always satisfied the radar LOS condition, changes in the aircraft state still have a significant impact on \(P_{ident}\). For \(S_{5}\) and \(S_{6}\), under the interference of the narrow-shaped island, the change in aircraft state from sea-skimming to high-altitude increased the \(P_{ident}\) of \(T_{a}\) by 0.5010; for \(S_{1}\) and \(S_{2}\), under the interference of the triangular-shaped island, the change in aircraft state from sea-skimming to high-altitude increased the \(P_{ident}\) of \(T_{b}\) by 0.3328. This indicates the importance of introducing the radar elevation angle resolution and MGF 3D model, and the necessity of the proposed method.