Those distinctions don't make one "lower power" than the other. In fact, those distinctions don't lower the peak power for either. There might even be a better case for Interrupted CW because the interruptions are blanks that don't have waves at all, while FMCW puts higher frequencies in segments which raises the energy for such. And by the way, even under the FMCW classification, there are different wave forms, e.g. triangular, sawtooth, etc,.
You don't have the right, or position, or stature to claim you are "disappointed" with me.
Did I ever acknowledge that FMCW decreases peak power? I don't see it in the text and in the form.
What I see in most texts is that they list FMCW not as an LPI, but as way of getting range with CWI.
It only means that FMCW cannot generate the same kind of peak power as pulsed systems do, which means it won't be able to emit in range or the power to detect smaller objects. To put it simply, that's the general disadvantage of CW radars, and this lack of power is what caused pulsed radars to replace them in the first place.
"FMCW systems are often used for radar altimeters, or in radar proximity fuzes for warheads. These systems do not have a minimum range like a pulsed system. However, they are not suitable for long range detection, because the continuous power level they transmit at must be considerably lower than the peak power of a pulsed system. You may recall that the peak and average power in a pulse system were related by the duty cycle,"
Spin it whatever you want. Your interpretation is faulty. For a radar to do its job, it requires it needs to reflect the target with some power.