Science & Global Security, 1998, Volume 8, pp.

99-124
Reprints available directly from the publisher
Photocopying permitted by license only
1998 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association)
Amsterdam B.V.
Published under license by
Gordon and Breach Science Publishers SA
Printed in the United States of America
Ballistic Missile Defense
Guidanc e and Control Issues
Paul Zarchan
a
Bal l i sti c targets can be more di fcul t to hi t than ai rcraft targets. I f the i ntercept takes
pl ace out of the atmosphere and i f no maneuveri ng i s taki ng pl ace, the bal l i sti c target
moti on can be fai rl y predi ctabl e si nce the onl y force acti ng on the target i s that of grav-
i ty. I n al l cases an exoatmospheri c i nterceptor wi l l need fuel to maneuver i n order to
hi t the target. The l ong engagement ti mes wi l l requi re gui dance and control strategi es
whi ch conserve fuel and mi ni mi ze the accel erati on l evel s for a successful i ntercept. I f
the i ntercept takes pl ace wi thi n the atmosphere, the bal l i sti c target i s not as predi ct-
abl e because asymmetri es wi thi n the target structure may cause i t to spi ral . I n addi -
ti on, the targets hi gh speed means that very l arge decel erati ons wi l l take pl ace and
appear as a maneuver to the pursui ng endoatmospheri c i nterceptor. I n thi s case
advanced gui dance and control strategi es are requi red to i nsure that the target can be
hi t even when the mi ssi l e i s out maneuvered. Thi s tutori al wi l l attempt to hi ghl i ght
the major gui dance and control chal l enges faci ng bal l i sti c mi ssi l e defense.
PREDICTING WHERE THE TARGET WILL BE
Before an i nterceptor can be l aunched at a bal l i sti c target, a sensor i s rst
requi red to track the threat. For exampl e, i f the sensor i s a ground radar, the
range and angl e from the radar to the target are measured. From these raw
measurements the posi ti on and vel oci ty (and i n some appl i cati ons accel era-
ti on) of the target can be esti mated.
a The Charl es Stark Draper Laboratory, I nc.
Mai l stop 84
555 Technol ogy Square
Cambri dge, MA 02139
Zarchan
100
The qual i ty of the esti mates depend on the measurement accuracy of the
radar and how often data are recei ved. From an esti mati on poi nt of vi ew,
hi gher data rates are better, but wi th hi gher data rates the radar wi l l be abl e
to track fewer potenti al targets at the same ti me.
Based on the l ter esti mates, a predi cti on of where the target wi l l be i n
the future must be made (i .e., the esti mated i ntercept poi nt i s approxi matel y
the esti mated target posi ti on pl us the esti mated target vel oci ty, ti mes the ti me
to go unti l i ntercept). The accuracy of the predi cti on depends not onl y on the
qual i ty of the l ter esti mates but al so on our knowl edge of what the target wi l l
do i n the future. Thi s future target l ocati on i s known as the predi cted i nter-
cept poi nt. I f the predi cted i ntercept poi nt were known perfectl y, a re control
sol uti on coul d be achi eved so that a mi ssi l e coul d si mpl y be l aunched at the
correct angl e and ri ght ti me to al so arri ve at the predi cted i ntercept poi nt. For
thi s si mpl i ed case a mi ssi l e gui dance system woul d not be requi red si nce
there woul d be no errors to take out.
For non-maneuveri ng exoatmospheri c targets predi cti on i s easi er si nce
gravi tati onal effects are wel l known. I n thi s case the predi cted i ntercept poi nt
can be extrapol ated forward from posi ti on and vel oci ty esti mates pl us knowl -
edge of Newtons l aw of uni versal gravi tati on. Longer engagement ti mes wi l l
have l arger i ntercept poi nt predi cti on errors. However, there wi l l al so be more
ti me avai l abl e to take out the errors.
I t i s i mpossi bl e to know preci sel y where the target wi l l be i n the future.
For exampl e, an ai rcraft target may not be maneuveri ng when i t i s bei ng
tracked by the radar, but may maneuver or change course a few seconds l ater.
I n thi s case the predi cted i ntercept poi nt woul d be i n consi derabl e error and
the mi ssi l e woul d have been l aunched i n the wrong di recti on. For mi ssi l es
whi ch perform i ntercepts i n the atmosphere, i t may be desi rabl e to l aunch the
mi ssi l e i n the wrong di recti on (i .e., not at the expected i ntercept poi nt) to
reduce drag or to prevent hi tti ng structures (i .e., i n the case of a shi p l aunched
mi ssi l e). Certai n types of mi ssi l es are i ni ti al l y l aunched i n thi s way but then
soon enter a phase of i ght i n whi ch they are commanded to pi tch over i n
order to y towards the expected i ntercept poi nt. I n practi ce, gui dance
updates can al so be sent to the i nterceptor duri ng the i ght as our knowl edge
of the predi cted i ntercept poi nt conti nues to i mprove.
Al though i n our exampl e the ground radar i s used to track the target and
hel p generate the i nformati on necessary to determi ne when and at what angl e
to l aunch the mi ssi l e, homi ng mi ssi l es must eventual l y see the targets for
themsel ves. The eyes of the mi ssi l e are known as the seeker. For homi ng mi s-
si l es, gui dance commands are based on seeker i nformati on. Some short range
mi ssi l es have seekers whi ch can acqui re and see the target throughout the
enti re i ght, whereas l onger range mi ssi l es may have to gui de on i nformati on
from the ground based radar unti l the seeker i s cl ose enough to the target to
make acqui si ti on possi bl e. Some mi ssi l es have a wi de enough seeker beam i n
whi ch i t makes sense to have a search phase for the seeker to acqui re the tar-
get. Other mi ssi l es have a very narrow seeker beam and are expected to
acqui re the target as soon as the seeker i s turned on. Therefore another com-
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
101
pl i cati ng factor i s the requi rement that mi ssi l es be own i n such a way that i t
makes seeker acqui si ti on easi er.
Long-range endoatmospheri c mi ssi l es use thrust to bui l d up speed onl y for
a fracti on of the i ght. After the fuel i s expended the mi ssi l e must gl i de to the
target. Control surfaces are moved to generate the l i ft or accel erati on so that
the mi ssi l e can respond to accel erati on commands i n order to i ntercept the
target. For endoatmospheri c mi ssi l es the amount of avai l abl e accel erati on
depends on the mi ssi l e speed and al ti tude of engagement. Hi gher speeds and
l ower engagement al ti tudes work i n the di recti on of i ncreasi ng the mi ssi l e
accel erati on capabi l i ty. Therefore, for endoatmospheri c i nterceptors, trajecto-
ri es may have to be own to maxi mi ze the mi ssi l e vel oci ty so that there i s suf-
ci ent accel erati on l eft to i ntercept the target. Heati ng consi derati ons wi l l
pl ace an upper l i mi t on the maxi mum achi evabl e speeds at the l ower engage-
ment al ti tudes.
Once the seeker can see or has acqui red the target, the major i ssues deter-
mi ni ng a successful i ntercept wi l l be the ti me remai ni ng unti l i ntercept, the
amount of accel erati on avai l abl e, and the errors whi ch must be taken out (i .e.,
i ntercept poi nt predi cti on error accumul ated before seeker acqui si ti on). I n
general , maxi mi zi ng the homi ng ti me i s consi dered to be beneci al for a vari -
ety of reasons. Technol ogi es whi ch i ncrease the seeker acqui si ti on range wi l l
al so i ncrease the the homi ng ti me.
A major error source i n i nuenci ng i nterceptor performance i s target
maneuver. An ai rcraft target may maneuver to avoi d i ntercepti on whi l e a bal -
l i sti c target may uni ntenti onal l y maneuver due to asymmetri es i n the ns or
the natural sl owdown of a hi gh speed object reenteri ng the atmosphere. The
natural sl owdown of the bal l i sti c target may appear as a maneuver to the
i nterceptor. Another error source i s known as the headi ng error or the i nter-
cept poi nt predi cti on error. As the name i mpl i es, thi s error source i s due to the
fact that the mi ssi l e had been yi ng i n the wrong di recti on unti l the mi ssi l e
seeker acqui red the target. Another error source i s noi se contami nati ng the
seeker measurements. Some of the potenti al noi se i s rel ated to the seeker
desi gn whi l e other noi se i s a property of the target. For exampl e, targets wi th
l ow radar cross secti ons wi l l resul t i n more seeker noi se and thus make i nter-
cepti on more di fcul t. Low radar cross secti ons are encountered wi th steal thy
ai rcraft targets and physi cal l y smal l pi eces of a bal l i sti c target. At ti mes, even
a l arge tumbl i ng target can appear to have a smal l radar cross secti on.
Guidanc e and Control
Most homi ng mi ssi l es use a form of proporti onal navi gati on once the seeker
has acqui red the target. Thi s si mpl e but effecti ve gui dance l aw has been i n
use for more than four decades on most of the worl ds operati onal homi ng mi s-
si l es. Wi th proporti onal navi gati on, accel erati on commands are i ssued whi ch
are proporti onal to the l i ne-of-si ght rate between the mi ssi l e and target (i .e.
the l i ne-of si ght angl e i s the angl e between an i magi nary l i ne connecti ng the
Zarchan
102
mi ssi l e and target and a xed reference as shown i n Fi gure 1. A more com-
pl ete di scussi on of proporti onal navi gati on and i ts effecti veness can be found
i n Chapter 2 of Reference 1. Gui dance i s di fferent than navi gati on i n the
sense that absol ute i nformati on concerni ng the present or future l ocati on of
the target i s not requi red for i ntercepti on. One can al most say that i f you
know where you are and where you want to go, navi gati on woul d be the
method for getti ng there. However, i f you di dnt know where you were or
where you wanted to go, gui dance woul d the method of getti ng you there.
Figure 1:A missile can intercept a target based on line-of-sight rate information.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
103
A bl ock di agram of a typi cal mi ssi l e gui dance system i s shown i n Fi gure 2.
Thi s type of bl ock di agram i s someti mes known as a homi ng l oop to control
engi neers because i t i s drawn i n the form of a feedback control system. I n the
Geometry secti on of the di agram, mi ssi l e accel erati on i s subtracted from tar-
get accel erati on to form a rel ati ve accel erati on. Two i ntegrati ons wi l l provi de
di stance, and the rel ati ve separati on between the mi ssi l e and target at the
end of the i ght i s known as the mi ss di stance. Al though the mi ssi l e desi gner
woul d l i ke there to be zero mi ss di stance, other factors may cause a mi ss di s-
Figure 2:A missile guidance system can be shown in the form of a control loop.
Zarchan
104
tance. I n conventi onal mi ssi l e systems a warhead i s used to ki l l the target
because i t i s bel i eved that there wi l l al ways be a mi ss di stance. I n newer sys-
tems bei ng proposed such as THAAD (i .e., hi t-to-ki l l mi ssi l es) the warhead
has been el i mi nated to reduce wei ght and cost and body to body contact i s
requi red for a ki l l .
The mi ssi l e seeker attempts to track the target. Effecti vel y the seeker
measures the geometri c l i ne-of-si ght angl e, and an error si gnal wi thi n the
seeker el ectroni cs provi des a noi sy esti mate of the l i ne-of-si ght rate. A noi se
l ter must smooth the noi sy seeker si gnal i n order to provi de an esti mate of
the l i ne-of-si ght rate. A gui dance command i s generated, based on the propor-
ti onal navi gati on gui dance l aw, from the noi se l ter output. The i ght control
system must enabl e the mi ssi l e to maneuver i n such a way that the achi eved
accel erati on matches the accel erati on commands from the gui dance l aw.
Endoatmospheri c mi ssi l es move control surfaces to get accel erati on whi l e
exoatmospheri c i nterceptors use di vert engi nes to get the appropri ate accel er-
ati on.
I f we negl ect the dynami cs of the seeker, noi se l ter and i ght control sys-
tem, we have a perfect or zero-l ag gui dance system. I n thi s type of system
proporti onal navi gati on i s so effecti ve that there wi l l be no mi ss di stance due
to any of the error sources provi ded the mi ssi l e has sufci ent accel erati on
capabi l i ty. Fi gure 3 presents a normal i zed pl ot of how much accel erati on i s
requi red to ensure zero mi ss di stance agai nst ei ther target maneuver or head-
i ng error. The formul as upon whi ch Fi gure 3 i s based are al so deri ved i n
Chapter 2 of Reference 1. I n the notati on of the gure n
c
i s the mi ssi l e accel -
erati on command i n uni ts of g, t
F
i s the i ght ti me or the amount of ti me from
seeker acqui si ti on unti l i ntercept i n uni ts of seconds, V
M
i s the mi ssi l e vel oci ty
i n uni ts of feet/second, HE i s the headi ng error i n uni ts of degrees, t i s ti me i n
uni ts of seconds and n
T
i s the target maneuver accel erati on l evel i n uni ts of g.
We see from Fi gure 3 that the maxi mum accel erati on requi red to take out
headi ng error wi l l occur at the begi nni ng (i .e., at seeker acqui si ti on) whi l e the
maxi mum accel erati on to take out target maneuver wi l l occur near i ntercept.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
105
I n order to i l l ustrate the use of the normal i zed gure above, consi der the case
where the mi ssi l e speed i s 3000 ft/s, there i s 10 deg of headi ng error and 10 s
of ti me remai ns from seeker acqui si ti on to i ntercept. I n thi s exampl e i n order
to nd the accel erati on requi red to take out the headi ng error i n order to
achi eve zero mi ss di stance we read 1.6*10
-3
or 0.0016 from the l eft hand ordi -
nate of Fi gure 3 at a normal i zed ti me of zero or
Figure 3:The maximum missile acceleration due to heading error occurs at the beginning of
ight while the maximum acceleration due to target maneuver occurs at the end of the
ight.
Zarchan
106
(1)
Therefore the requi red accel erati on at the begi nni ng of the i ght can be found
by i nverti ng the precedi ng expressi on:
(2)
I f a hi gher frequency seeker was used wi th reduced acqui si ti on range,
then the effecti ve homi ng ti me woul d be reduced and the requi red accel era-
ti on woul d i ncrease. For exampl e, i f a hi gher frequency l ow noi se seeker was
used whi ch yi el ded an effecti ve homi ng ti me of 2 s (down from 10 s) then the
requi red accel erati on woul d i ncrease by a factor of 5 to 24 g. For an endoatmo-
spheri c mi ssi l e, a 24 g requi rement mi ght not present a probl em at l ow al ti -
tudes but i t mi ght not be possi bl e at the hi gher al ti tudes. Di vert engi ne
technol ogy mi ght not permi t thi s amount of accel erati on for an exoatmo-
spheri c i nterceptor. Therefore, the al l owabl e headi ng error or i ntercept poi nt
predi cti on error wi l l be much l ess for an exoatmospheri c i ntercept. Thi s
means that predi cti ng where the target wi l l be i n the future i s much more
i mportant for exoatmospheri c engagements than i t i s for endoatmospheri c
engagements.
We al so see from Fi gure 3 that the mi ssi l e needs three ti mes the accel era-
ti on capabi l i ty of the target i n order to be effecti ve no matter what type of
seeker i s used. A 6 g target maneuver requi res a mi ssi l e wi th at l east an 18 g
capabi l i ty i n order to ensure a hi t. Usual l y a 3 to 1 accel erati on advantage
over the target does not present a probl em for the endoatmospheri c i ntercep-
tor when the target i s an ai rcraft si nce the mi ssi l e i s usual l y travel i ng at a
much faster speed and does not have the physi ol ogi cal constrai nts of the pi l ot
to consi der. However, i f the target i s a bal l i sti c mi ssi l e the speed advantage of
the pursuer vani shes and there may be huge decel erati ons (whi ch appear as
maneuvers) to contend wi th. Si nce i t i s usual l y not anti ci pated that exoatmo-
spheri c targets wi l l empl oy l arge maneuvers, the i nterceptor accel erati on
requi rements for exoatmospheri c targets are usual l y much smal l er than for
endoatmospheri c targets.
The precedi ng di scussi on assumed there were no dynami cs wi thi n the
gui dance system. I n real i ty, gui dance commands can not be i mpl emented
i nstantaneousl y and there wi l l be l ags or dynami cs wi thi n the gui dance sys-
tem. For si mpl i ci ty, we wi l l associ ate a ti me constant wi th the gui dance
dynami cs.
n
c
t
F
V
M
HE
------------------- 0.0016 =
n
c
0.0016V
M
HE
t
F
-------------------------------------
0.0016

3000

10
10
----------------------------------------- 4.8g = = =
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
107
Figure 4:A target maneuvering right before intercept can induce a large miss distance if the
guidance system time constant is large.
Zarchan
108
I n other words, i f the i ght control system had a ti me constant of 0.5 s (i .e.,
thi s i s based on the exponenti al sol uti on to a di fferenti al equati on and i s more
ful l y di scussed i n Chapter 3 of Reference 1), i t woul d mean that i f a 10 g accel -
erati on command were i ssued i t woul d take 0.5 s for the output accel erati on to
reach 6.3 g, 1 s for the output accel erati on to reach 8.6 g and 1.5 s for the out-
put accel erati on to reach 9.5 g. I n practi ce the gui dance system dynami cs can
be qui te si gni cant. I n endoatmospheri c mi ssi l es the domi nant porti on of the
total system ti me constant i s usual l y associ ated wi th the i ght control system,
whi l e i n exoatmospheri c mi ssi l es the domi nant ti me constant i s usual l y asso-
Figure 5:Long seeker acquisition ranges will help reduce the miss due to heading error.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
109
ci ated wi th noi se l teri ng.
Fi gures 4 and 5 show that gui dance system dynami cs can have a profound
i nuence on the mi ss di stance. From these gures we see that i f there i s suf-
ci ent homi ng and there i s sufci ent mi ssi l e accel erati on there wi l l not be any
mi ss di stance. Thi s i s the mai n reason that seekers wi th l onger acqui si ti on
ranges are beneci al . Usual l y the rul e of thumb i s to ensure that the rati o of
the homi ng ti me to the effecti ve gui dance system ti me constant i s greater
than 10. I f the rati o i s l ess than 10 there can be consi derabl e mi ss di stance.
The absci ssa i n Fi gure 4 can ei ther be i nterpreted as the homi ng ti me or the
ti me to go before i ntercept at whi ch the target maneuvers. We can see that i f
the gui dance system ti me constant i s 0.5 s the mi ss di stance due to a 6 g tar-
get maneuver can be qui te l arge and i f the ti me constant can be reduced to 0.1
s the mi ss di stance can be made near zero. Si mi l ar resul ts can be seen i n Fi g-
ure 5 where the error di sturbance i s a 10 degree headi ng error. Therefore, we
can concl ude that a system wi th a smal l gui dance system ti me constant has
the potenti al for havi ng very smal l mi ss di stances. However, we shal l see
l ater that there are technol ogy i ssues associ ated wi th how smal l the gui dance
system ti me constant can be made.
I t mi ght appear from Fi gures 4 and 5 that i f the i ght ti me was very l arge
(i .e., l ong seeker acqui si ti on range) that there woul d never be any mi ss di s-
tance. Fi gure 6 presents the normal i zed mi ss di stance due to semi acti ve hom-
i ng noi se as a functi on of the normal i zed homi ng ti me. We can see that even i f
the seeker had an i nni te acqui si ti on range there woul d al ways be a ni te
mi ss due to thi s error source. We see from the ordi nate that i f a better seeker
were used the noi se spectral densi ty woul d be reduced wi th the resul t
that the standard devi ati on of the mi ss di stance woul d decrease. We al so see
that as wi th target maneuver and headi ng error, reduci ng the gui dance sys-
tem ti me constant has si mi l ar beneci al effects. The mi ssi l e cl osi ng vel oci ty
V
c
i s approxi matel y the sum of the mi ssi l e and target vel oci ti es for head-on
engagements. We can see that i f the cl osi ng vel oci ty i s doubl ed, the mi ss di s-
tance wi l l quadrupl e. I n other words, al l other thi ngs bei ng equal , the semi -
acti ve noi se mi ss di stance wi l l be greater agai nst a hi gh-speed bal l i sti c target
than i t wi l l be agai nst a l ow-speed ai rcraft target. Therefore, i t i s very i mpor-
tant to have a l ow noi se seeker agai nst a bal l i sti c target.

RN
Zarchan
110
Why Reduc ing the Time Constant Might Be Difc ult
Thus far, from al l of the resul ts presented, i t woul d appear that the gui dance
system desi gner has an easy job, si nce al l the graphs i ndi cate that smal l er
gui dance ti me constants appear to i mprove system performance. I n actual
Figure 6:The miss due to semiactive receiver noise does not decrease with longer ight times.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
111
practi ce, parasi ti c or unwanted feedback paths wi thi n the homi ng l oop wi l l
work i n the di recti on of l arger ti me constants to get acceptabl e performance.
One of the most seri ous unwanted feedback paths i s created i n tacti cal radar
homi ng mi ssi l e appl i cati ons by the mi ssi l e radome. The radome causes a
refracti on or bendi ng of the i ncomi ng radar wave, whi ch i n turn gi ves a fal se
i ndi cati on of the target l ocati on as i s i ndi cated i n Fi gure 7. Fi gure 7a presents
the case i n whi ch the mi ssi l e i s yi ng di rectl y at the target. I n thi s case the
reected energy (i .e., transmi tter on ground i n semi acti ve case or i n mi ssi l e
for acti ve case) passes strai ght through the radome di rectl y to the seeker.
Therefore, the seeker i s l ooki ng di rectl y at the target and there i s no probl em
si nce the mi ssi l e wi l l conti nue to y i n the correct di recti on. Fi gure 7b shows
a more i nteresti ng case i n whi ch the mi ssi l e i s pi tched up. I n thi s case the
radar energy reected from the real target i s bent as i t passes through the
radome, gi vi ng the seeker the i mpressi on that the apparent target i s bel ow.
Therefore accel erati on commands are generated to poi nt the mi ssi l e i n a
downward di recti on to chase the apparent target as i s shown i n Fi gure 7c.
Here we see that the bendi ng of the reected radar energy now causes the
mi ssi l e to pi tch up i n attempt to chase the apparent target. The resul tant
mi ssi l e porpoi si ng (goi ng up and down) i s actual l y an i nstabi l i ty wi thi n the
gui dance system. The ampl i tude of the porpoi si ng wi l l depend on the gui d-
ance system ti me constant and the aerodynami c properti es of the ai rframe.
Mi ssi l es whi ch are more responsi ve (i .e., smal l er ti me constants) and pi tch
more for a gi ven accel erati on command (i .e., al l aerodynami c mi ssi l es do thi s
at hi gh al ti tudes) wi l l suffer more from the radome probl em.
Zarchan
112
A quanti ty known as the radome sl ope (see Chapter 6 of Reference 1 to see
how radome sl ope i s rel ated to refracti on angl e) i s used to quanti fy radomes
and i s used by the gui dance system engi neer i n anal yzi ng the radome stabi l i ty
probl em. The radome sl opes can ei ther be posi ti ve or negati ve. I f the magni -
tude of the radome sl ope i s l arge more bendi ng or refracti on wi l l take pl ace
and the stabi l i ty probl em wi l l worsen. Therefore the gui dance system
desi gner woul d l i ke to use smal l radome sl opes. Seekers operati ng at hi gher
frequenci es or havi ng l arger apertures wi l l tend to yi el d smal l er radome
Figure 7:Radome problems can cause a stability problem within the guidance system.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
113
sl opes. Mi ssi l e noses whi ch have l ower neness rati os (smal l er l ength to
di ameter) wi l l al so tend to reduce the radome sl ope. I n theory, a hemi spheri -
cal nose wi l l yi el d zero radome sl ope but for endoatmospheri c i nterceptors the
drag penal ty mi ght be unacceptabl e. Many bel i eve that onl y radar homi ng
mi ssi l es suffer from the radome sl ope probl em. However, i nfrared mi ssi l es
suffer from a si mi l ar probl em and thi s probl em i s usual l y sol ved by payi ng the
drag penal ty and usi ng a hemi spheri cal front end.
One method for deal i ng wi th the radome sl ope probl em i s to i ntenti onal l y
i ncrease the gui dance system ti me constant at hi gher al ti tudes. Thi s wi l l
make the mi ssi l e more sl uggi sh and dampen the tendenci es for the mi ssi l e to
porpoi se. Of course, we have seen that i ncreasi ng the gui dance system ti me
constant may i ncrease the mi ss di stance to other error sources to unaccept-
abl e l evel s. Another method i s to arti ci al l y reduce the radome sl ope by the
use of di gi tal compensati on tabl es i n i ght. The compensati on tabl es are
deri ved from extensi ve l aboratory measurements on sampl e radomes. I f the
radome materi al used has el ectri cal characteri sti cs whi ch are a functi on of
temperature, thi s temperature dependency must be taken i nto account i n the
deri vati on of the compensati on tabl es si nce i ntercepts wi l l not take pl ace at
room temperature. Another possi bi l i ty for al l evi ati ng the radome probl em i s
to use advanced l teri ng techni ques to esti mate the radome sl opes i n i ght
and then compensate. Al though the precedi ng di scussi on on radome pertai ns
to radar homi ng mi ssi l es there are si mi l ar but l ess understood effects i n other
types of mi ssi l es as wel l .
For negati ve radome sl opes i t can be shown that the gui dance system wi l l
onl y be stabl e i f the mi ni mum gui dance system ti me constant T
Mi n
i s gi ven by
(3)
where R i s the radome sl ope, V
M
i s the mi ssi l e vel oci ty, V
c
i s the cl osi ng vel oc-
i ty, an aerodynami c parameter known as the turni ng rate ti me constant
measured i n seconds (i .e., amount of ti me i t takes mi ssi l e to devel op an angl e
of attack for a gi ven accel erati on l evel ). We see from the precedi ng rel ati on-
shi p that endoatmospheri c engagements wi th l arger cl osi ng vel oci ti es (i .e.,
i nvol vi ng bal l i sti c targets) or those taki ng pl ace at hi gher al ti tudes (i .e., l arger
turni ng rate ti me constant) wi l l requi re a l arger gui dance system ti me con-
stant i n order to keep the gui dance system stabl e for a gi ven radome sl ope.
Fi gure 8 pl ots the precedi ng equati on i n order to demonstrate another reason
why bal l i sti c targets are more chal l engi ng than ai rcraft threats. Consi der the
case i n whi ch the mi ssi l e speed i s 3000 ft/s, the target speed i s 1000 ft/s and
the turni ng rate ti me constant i s 5 s. Suppose the radome technol ogy was
T
Mi n
3.8V
c
RT

V
M
---------------------------- =
T

Zarchan
114
such that negati ve sl opes of 0.005 coul d be achi eved. Si nce the cl osi ng vel oci ty
i s 4000 ft/s (3000+1000=4000) the normal i zed absci ssa turns out to be 6.67
(4000*5/3000=6.67) and so we see that the smal l est ti me constant whi ch coul d
be achi eved woul d be 0.12 s. I f everythi ng remai ned the same but wi th the
target travel i ng at 6000 ft/s (i .e. a bal l i sti c target), the cl osi ng vel oci ty woul d
i ncrease to 9000 ft/s (3000+6000=9000) and the normal i zed absci ssa woul d be
15 (9000*5/3000=15) i ncreasi ng the mi ni mum gui dance system ti me constant
to approxi matel y 0.3 s. Less advanced radome technol ogi es woul d yi el d l arger
sl opes and the mi ni mum ti me constant to keep the gui dance system stabl e
woul d al so i ncrease. Therefore, pushi ng the l i mi ts of radome technol ogy i s
Figure 8:Minimum achieveable guidance time constant increases with increasing randome
slope.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
115
cri ti cal for successful l y achi evi ng hi gh al ti tude i ntercepts agai nst bal l i sti c tar-
gets wi thi n the atmosphere.
Why More Ac c eleration Capability is Better
A bal l i sti c target wi l l decel erate at i t reenters the atmosphere. Dependi ng on
the engagement geometry, some or al l of the decel erati on coul d appear as a
target maneuver to a pursui ng i nterceptor. To rst order, the decel erati on
experi enced by the bal l i sti c target i s proporti onal to the square of i ts i ni ti al
vel oci ty and the si ne of the reentry angl e (see Chapter 17 of Reference 1).
Figure 9:Ballistic targets experience high declarations.
Zarchan
116
Typi cal maxi mum decel erati on l evel s are shown i n Fi gure 9. We can see that
a target whose i ni ti al speed i s 6000 ft/s wi th an atmospheri c reenteri ng angl e
of 45 degrees wi l l experi ence a maxi mum decel erati on of 6 g. I f the i ni ti al
speed i ncreases to 8000 ft/s the maxi mum decel erati on woul d i ncrease to 12 g.
An i ni ti al speed of 10,000 ft/s woul d gi ve ri se to a maxi mum decel erati on
of 18 g.
I f for practi cal reasons the mi ni mum achi evabl e ti me constant was 0.2 s,
Fi gure 10 shows how the mi ss di stance vari es wi th i ght ti me (or ti me to go
at whi ch the target maneuvers) for the case i n whi ch there i s a 6 g target
maneuver. We see that for the case of an i nterceptor wi th an i nni te accel era-
ti on capabi l i ty, the mi ssi l e i s vul nerabl e to mi ss di stances i n excess of 2 ft for
i ght ti mes of l ess than 1 s (i .e., short seeker acqui si ti on range) or for maneu-
vers whi ch occur wi th l ess than 1 s to go before i ntercept. The mi ss can be as
l arge as 10 ft i f the maneuver occurs at approxi matel y 0.5 s before i ntercept
even i f the seeker had an i nni te acqui si ti on range. I f the mi ssi l e has a 30 g
accel erati on capabi l i ty (i .e. ve ti mes the maneuverabi l i ty of the target) the
resul ts remai n unchanged. However, i f the mi ssi l e has an 18 g accel erati on
capabi l i ty (i .e., three ti mes the maneuverabi l i ty of the target) then the vul ner-
abi l i ty of the mi ssi l e can i ncrease substanti al l y.
Therefore, from Fi gure 10 we see that more accel erati on capabi l i ty i s bet-
ter (i .e., mi ss gets smal l er as accel erati on capabi l i ty i ncreases). For endoat-
mospheri c mi ssi l es the maxi mum achi evabl e angl e of attack wi l l determi ne
how much of an accel erati on capabi l i ty the mi ssi l e wi l l have. For a gi ven angl e
of attack the mi ssi l e accel erati on capabi l i ty wi l l decrease wi th i ncreasi ng al ti -
tude. Agai nst l ow-speed ai rcraft targets thi s phenomenon i s not a probl em
si nce the ai rcraft maneuverabi l i ty wi l l al so decrease wi th i ncreasi ng al ti tude.
However, agai nst hi gh-speed bal l i sti c targets thi s presents a gui dance system
chal l enge si nce the target can easi l y out maneuver the mi ssi l e for hi gh al ti -
tude i ntercepts (i .e., see Fi gure 9). Decreasi ng the i ntercept al ti tude (i .e.,
where the bal l i sti c target decel erati on wi l l be smal l er) i s often not possi bl e for
popul ati on safety reasons.
I n more conventi onal endoatmospheri c mi ssi l es, the maxi mum angl e of
attack i s chosen to avoi d cross-coupl i ng probl ems wi thi n the i ght control sys-
tem. However si nce needed mi ssi l e accel erati on i s proporti onal to the square
of the angl e of attack (i .e., see Chapter 22 of Reference 1) there i s a bi g advan-
tage i n pushi ng the l i mi ts of i ght control technol ogy i n order to get more
maneuverabl e i nterceptors.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
117
Why Less Ac c eleration Capability is Sometimes Better
I t mi ght appear from the di scussi on so far that exoatmospheri c engage-
ments are easy because there probabl y are no maneuveri ng targets, there i s
very l i ttl e sensor noi se because el ectro-opti cal seekers are used and the ti me
constants wi thi n the gui dance system are smal l because di vert engi nes are
used to get the requi red accel erati on. However, i n exoatmospheri c engage-
ments a warhead wi l l not normal l y be effecti ve and vi rtual l y zero mi ss di s-
Figure 10:Limited missile maneuverability will increase the miss distance.
Zarchan
118
tance i s requi red agai nst the target warhead. At l ong di stances the whol e
target wi l l be seen by the i nterceptors el ectro-opti cal seeker and the mi ssi l e
wi l l gui de to a track poi nt whi ch i s usual l y at the power centroi d of the target.
Later on, the warhead wi l l be i maged and i t wi l l become the new target for the
i nterceptor. When resol uti on occurs (i .e. target i s i maged), the mi ssi l e gui d-
ance poi nt shi fts i nstantaneousl y from the track poi nt to the warhead. As far
as the i nterceptor i s concerned, there has been a step change i n target posi -
ti on. I n other words, there are two gui dance probl ems whi ch are someti mes
cal l ed end games. The rst end game starts when the seeker acqui res the tar-
get and the second end game begi ns when the warhead i s i maged. The success
of the rst end game i s necessary but not sufci ent for the success of the sec-
ond end game. Thi s i s si mi l ar to many basketbal l games i n whi ch the outcome
al ways appears to be determi ned by the l ast few mi nutes of pl ay.
The apparent step i n target di spl acement occurs l ate i n the i ght, whi ch i s
the worst possi bl e ti me from a mi ssi l e gui dance system poi nt of vi ew. Si gni -
cant mi ss di stances, as measured from the targets warhead, may resul t
because of i nsufci ent remai ni ng homi ng ti me.
Fi gure 11 presents an exampl e of how the mi ss di stance vari es as a func-
ti on of the ti me l eft after warhead resol uti on for the case i n whi ch the war-
head i s 10 ft from the i ni ti al tracki ng poi nt (i .e., target power centroi d). I n
thi s exampl e, the overal l gui dance system ti me constant i s 0.1 s and curves
are presented for vari ous mi ssi l e accel erati on capabi l i ti es. I f there i s zero
ti me l eft after warhead resol uti on, the mi ssi l e wi l l hi t the track poi nt and
mi ss the warhead by 10 ft. I f we have more than 0.8 s l eft after warhead res-
ol uti on, the mi ssi l e wi l l hi t the warhead (i .e., zero mi ss di stance) - even i f i t
onl y has 2 g of accel erati on capabi l i ty. I f there i s i nsufci ent homi ng ti me
after warhead resol uti on the mi ssi l e wi l l at l east hi t the target (i .e., mi ss di s-
tance between 0 ft and 10 ft) i f the mi ssi l e has ei ther a 2 g or 5 g capabi l i ty.
However, i f the mi ssi l e had an i nni te accel erati on capabi l i ty, and there were
onl y 0.2 s l eft after warhead resol uti on, then i t i s possi bl e not onl y to mi ss the
warhead but al so the mi ssi l e i tsel f. I n thi s case the apparent i nstantaneous
step i n target di spl acement causes the agi l e mi ssi l e to overshoot the warhead.
Thi s i s one of those rare i nstances i n whi ch l i mi ted accel erati on capabi l i ty i s a
vi rtue.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
119
Figure 11:There must be sufcient time left after resolution in order to hit the warhead.
Zarchan
120
Fi gure 12 shows how the gui dance system ti me constant i nuences system
performance. I n general , smal l er gui dance system ti me constants enabl e the
mi ssi l e to hi t the warhead wi th l ess homi ng ti me (i .e., ti me l eft after warhead
resol uti on). We can see from Fi gure 12 that i f the gui dance system ti me con-
stant i s 0.05 s, onl y 0.4 s of homi ng are requi red for the mi ssi l e to hi t the war-
head. I n thi s exampl e, a 0.1 s gui dance ti me constant requi res at l east 0.8 s of
homi ng and a 0.2 s ti me constant requi res much more than one second of hom-
i ng to hi t the warhead. I t can be shown that the rati o of the ti me l eft after
warhead resol uti on to the gui dance system ti me constant must be at l east ten
Figure 12:Small time constants are required to hit the warhead.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
121
to be sure that the mi ssi l e wi l l al ways hi t the warhead. Thi s means that the
mi ssi l e gui dance system ti me constant must be as smal l as possi bl e. For
exoatmospheri c i ntercepts, the l ower l i mi t on the gui dance system ti me con-
stant i s governed by maxi mum al l owabl e accel erati on saturati on due to sensor
noi se. Therefore the devel opment of l ow noi se seekers i s an i mportant compo-
nent of the sol uti on to the ai mpoi nt shi ft probl em.
Improving the Guidanc e
The exampl es chosen i n thi s tutori al have assumed proporti onal navi gati on
gui dance. Al though thi s gui dance l aw i s extremel y popul ar because of i ts si m-
pl i ci ty and ease of i mpl ementati on, more advanced gui dance l aws can yi el d
better performance under certai n ci rcumstances.
Proporti onal navi gati on onl y requi res l i ne-of-si ght rate i nformati on to
work. One can show mathemati cal l y that thi s gui dance l aw predi cts the
i ntercept poi nt assumi ng that the target i s not maneuveri ng. Thi s does not
mean that mi ssi l es empl oyi ng proporti onal navi gati on can not hi t maneuver-
i ng targets. I t does mean that i f more i nformati on were taken i nto account
l ess accel erati on woul d be requi red to hi t the target. An exampl e of a more
advanced gui dance l aw i s known as augmented proporti onal navi gati on. I f
the target accel erati on i s known exactl y, the normal i zed pl ot of Fi gure 13
shows how the accel erati on requi rements to hi t a maneuveri ng target can be
reduced si gni cantl y. We can see that proporti onal navi gati on requi res three
ti mes the accel erati on capabi l i ty of the target for a successful i ntercept
whereas augmented proporti onal navi gati on onl y requi res hal f the accel era-
ti on.
Zarchan
122
Of course, the l evel of target maneuver can not be known but must be esti -
mated usi ng advanced l teri ng techni ques. These techni ques requi re range
from the mi ssi l e to target measurements i n addi ti on to l i ne-of-si ght rate i nfor-
mati on. For many radar homi ng seekers, range i nformati on i s avai l abl e but
for other seekers (i .e., i nfrared) thi s i nformati on i s l acki ng and i t i s not possi -
bl e to appl y advanced gui dance techni ques di rectl y. The i dea of obtai ni ng
range i nformati on from angl e-onl y measurements i s known as passi ve rang-
i ng. Al though passi ve rangi ng has been successful l y appl i ed i n other appl i ca-
ti ons, i ts i mpl ementati on i n homi ng appl i cati ons i s more chal l engi ng because
Figure 13:Augmented proportional navigation can signicantly reduce acceleration require-
ments against maneuvering targets.
Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues
123
of observabi l i ty probl ems.
Other advanced gui dance l aws attempt to make use of a more preci se esti -
mate of the predi cted i ntercept poi nt. These gui dance l aws requi re accurate
knowl edge of the ti me to go before i ntercept and a good model of what the tar-
get i s doi ng. The mother of al l gui dance l aws i s known as predi cti ve gui d-
ance i n whi ch the predi cted i ntercept i s cal cul ated i n i ght by rapi dl y
i ntegrati ng the nonl i near mi ssi l e and target equati ons forward i n i ght at
each gui dance update. Gui dance commands are proporti onal to the expected
mi ss di stance (someti mes cal l ed the zero effort mi ss) and i nversel y propor-
ti onal to the square of the ti me to go unti l i ntercept. When the i nformati on
requi red for predi cti ve gui dance i s avai l abl e, extraordi nary l evel s of perfor-
mance can be achi eved. When the i nformati on i s l acki ng or i n error, the per-
formance of predi cti ve gui dance may be substanti al l y worse than that of
proporti onal navi gati on. The technol ogy for devel opi ng robust gui dance
approaches must be pushed i f we hope to hi t targets when worki ng at an
accel erati on di sadvantage.
SUMMARY
Thi s tutori al has attempted to hi ghl i ght some of the major gui dance and
control chal l enges i n i ntercepti ng bal l i sti c targets. We have seen that l onger
seeker acqui si ti on ranges and l ess measurement noi se are often beneci al .
Advances i n seeker technol ogy are requi red to yi el d accurate measurements
and i ncrease the homi ng ti me. General l y, smal l er gui dance system ti me con-
stants wi l l work i n the di recti on of maki ng near zero mi ss di stance possi bl e.
However, advances i n radome technol ogy are requi red so that gui dance sys-
tem stabi l i ty i ssues can be sol ved and smal l ti me constants can be obtai ned.
Usual l y more mi ssi l e accel erati on i s requi red to engage hi gh-speed bal l i sti c
threats i n the atmosphere. Advances i n i ght control system technol ogy are
requi red to al l ow an endoatmospheri c mi ssi l e to work at hi gher angl es of
attack so that more accel erati on can be obtai ned. Fi nal l y, advances i n practi -
cal gui dance l aw technol ogy are requi red i f we are to engage threats whi ch can
out maneuver the mi ssi l e.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Zarchan, P., Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance Third Edition, AI AAProgress
i n Astronauti cs and Aeronauti cs, Vol . 176, (Washi ngton, DC, 1998).
2. Chadwi ck, W.R., and Zarchan P., I ntercepti on of Spi ral i ng Bal l i sti c Mi ssi l es,
Proceedings of 1995 American Control Conference, (Seattl e, WA, June 1995), pp. 4476-
4483.
3. Zarchan, P., When Bad Thi ngs Happen To Good Mi ssi l es, Proceedings of AI AA
Guidance and Control Conference, AI AA, (Washi ngton, DC, August, 1993).
Zarchan
124
4. Pl atus, D. H., Bal l i sti c Reentry Vehi cl e Fl i ght Dynami cs, J ournal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol . 5, (Jan.- Feb. 1982), pp. 4 -16.
5. Zarchan, P., Proporti onal Navi gati on and Weavi ng Targets, J ournal of Guid-
ance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol . 18, (Sept.- Oct. 1995), pp. 969-974.