## 4 Simulation and Results
### Simulation Results  
For clarity, the time-pointer scheduling method is referred to as the \"traditional method,\" while the proposed approach is termed the \"improved method.\"  
The simulation results are shown in Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 8 and 9. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the results for the traditional method and the proposed method, respectively. Each table reports the mean \(\pm\) standard deviation of various evaluation metrics across 100 simulation runs under different numbers of targets. Figure 8 illustrates the trends of these metrics as the number of targets increases, while Figure 9 depicts the variation in the time shift ratio corresponding to targets with different threat levels. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Task Type** & **Priority** & **Dwell Time** & **Time Window** & **Cycle** & **Transmission Power** \\ \hline Confirmation & 4 & 4 ms & 60 ms & - & 5.5 kw \\ Precision tracking & 3 & 10 ms & 60 ms & 400 ms & 5 kw \\ General tracking & 2 & 10 ms & 80 ms & 600 ms & 5 kw \\ Search & 1 & 5 ms & 100 ms & - & 3 kw \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Simulation task parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Numbers of** & **SSR of Search** & **SSR of Track** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **SSR of** \\ **Confirmation** \\ \end{tabular} & **ATSR** & **HVR** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **SSR of All** \\ **Tasks** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
12 & 0.7941 \(\pm\) 0.0099 & 0.9998 \(\pm\) 0.0021 & 1 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.9430 \(\pm\) 0.0323 & 0.8366 \(\pm\) 0.0038 & 0.8136 \(\pm\) 0.0066 \\
24 & 0.5940 \(\pm\) 0.0233 & 0.9997 \(\pm\) 0.0015 & 1 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.9308 \(\pm\) 0.0662 & 0.7315 \(\pm\) 0.0030 & 0.6635 \(\pm\) 0.0098 \\
36 & 0.3889 \(\pm\) 0.0117 & 0.9995 \(\pm\) 0.0031 & 1 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.8243 \(\pm\) 0.0958 & 0.6546 \(\pm\) 0.0018 & 0.5339 \(\pm\) 0.0049 \\
48 & 0.1810 \(\pm\) 0.0119 & 0.9995 \(\pm\) 0.0018 & 1 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.7024 \(\pm\) 0.0448 & 0.5966 \(\pm\) 0.0020 & 0.4219 \(\pm\) 0.0044 \\
60 & 0.1051 \(\pm\) 0.0088 & 0.8740 \(\pm\) 0.0025 & 1 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.7379 \(\pm\) 0.0256 & 0.5529 \(\pm\) 0.0016 & 0.3694 \(\pm\) 0.0032 \\
72 & 0.0835 \(\pm\) 0.0077 & 0.7406 \(\pm\) 0.0020 & 1 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.7954 \(\pm\) 0.0182 & 0.5173 \(\pm\) 0.0016 & 0.3936 \(\pm\) 0.0026 \\
84 & 0.0774 \(\pm\) 0.0065 & 0.6413 \(\pm\) 0.0019 & 1 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.7972 \(\pm\) 0.0124 & 0.4899 \(\pm\) 0.0015 & 0.3192 \(\pm\) 0.0021 \\
96 & 0.0661 \(\pm\) 0.0066 & 0.5656 \(\pm\) 0.0017 & 1 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.6978 \(\pm\) 0.0114 & 0.4655 \(\pm\) 0.0015 & 0.2988 \(\pm\) 0.0021 \\
108 & 0.0568 \(\pm\) 0.0052 & 0.5050 \(\pm\) 0.0012 & 1 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.6568 \(\pm\) 0.0086 & 0.4451 \(\pm\) 0.0012 & 0.2808 \(\pm\) 0.0016 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Scheduling performance metrics (mean \(\pm\) std) under different numbers of targets using the traditional method. Figure 8a compares the average time shift ratios between the traditional and improved methods. It is evident that, regardless of the number of targets, the average time shift ratio of the improved method is significantly lower than that of the traditional method. This is because the improved method imposes constraints during the scheduling of each task, strictly controlling the time shifting range for each task. Specifically, the traditional method allows task execution at any point within the permissible window between the earliest start time and the deadline. However, with the time shifting constraint applied in the improved method, the execution time of tasks is confined within a range that achieves timely execution. Compared to low-threat, low-speed, and low-maneuverability targets, the tracking accuracy of high-threat, high-speed, and high-maneuverability targets is more significantly affected by time shifting. Additionally, the tasks associated with high-threat targets are often of greater importance. Therefore, the execution time of high threat targets needs to be closer to the expected execution time.