JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE, CONTROL, AND DYNAMICS

Vol. 37, No. 6, NovemberDecember 2014

Arbitrary-Order Sliding-Mode-Based Homing-Missile Guidance

for Intercepting Highly Maneuverable Targets

B. Kada
King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001
This paper investigates the development and implementation of a new homing-missile guidance system for
intercepting highly maneuverable targets using arbitrary features of the homogeneous high-order sliding-mode
controllers and observers. The concept of this guidance system involves artificially increasing the orders of controllers
and observers to enhance accuracy and robustness of future interceptors. Two advanced guidance laws, that
is, augmented proportional navigation law and direct collision or hit-to-kill law, are considered to construct
acceleration-based and velocity-based attractive sliding manifolds, respectively; and high-order robust exact differ-
entiators are used to compute high-order time derivatives of these manifolds. Real-time estimation of target maneuver
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

from measurements using these differentiators is also considered. The resulting guidance laws are implemented in
computer simulation using nonlinear interceptor dynamics and engagement kinematics. The results prove that the
guidance system achieves high-level performance and successfully meets direct collision guidance requirements. In
addition, this system shows good adaptability and strong robustness to target evasive maneuvers, parameter
uncertainties, and measurement noises.

Nomenclature control, artificial intelligence, and variable structure control [59].

A = acceleration, g Many of these solutions were derived by 1) assuming perfect
h = z-axis coordinate, m knowledge of target state and maneuver or estimating them using
M = Mach number conventional observers, 2) considering no measurement noise or
q = pitch rate, rads nonprocessing target information, and 3) using ideal or linearized
R = missiletarget closing range, m interceptor dynamics. Even though the resulting guidance laws are
r = relative degree accurate for nonmaneuvering and moderately maneuvering targets,
tf = time of flight or total time of guidance, s these laws could fail to guarantee stringent performance requirements
V = velocity, ms and ensure stable and agile flight when applied for realistic interception
x = x-axis coordinate, m missions involving highly and randomly maneuverable targets.
= angle of attack, deg On the other hand, as the tracking and interception missions have
= flight-path angle, deg to be performed in realistic scenarios, it is of prime importance to
= control surface deflection, deg accurately estimate the target state and maneuver to ensure target kill.
= line-of-sight angle, deg The key to successful target tracking lies in the ability of observers to
= sliding manifold extract useful information about the target state and maneuver.
= time constant, s Assuming a suitable dynamics model, several estimation algorithms
have been designed and inserted in the guidance and homing loops as
target state and maneuver estimating building blocks, such as Gauss
Markov processes, extended Kalman filter (EKF), multiple-model
I. Introduction methods, and artificial intelligence observers [1020]. To describe

F ROM a defense point of view, the deficiency of existing homing-

missile guidance strategies to guarantee satisfactory endgame
performance against maneuvering targets is essentially due to
1) target evasive maneuvers, 2) large errors in target state estimation
and maneuver tracking, 3) noise contaminating seeker measure-
ments, and 4) interceptor maneuverability saturation.
Over the last few decades, great strides have been made in
responding to these challenges and interesting investigations have
been conducted, leading to new perspectives and solutions. Tradi-
tional guidance laws have been modified, yielding new guidance
schemes such as augmented proportional navigation (APN), pure
proportional navigation, optimal guidance laws, predictive guidance
laws, switched bias proportional navigation, and circular navigation
guidance [14]. Furthermore, new guidance strategies have been
evolved and implemented in navigation and homing guidance loops
using different control approaches such as nonlinear control, modern
Received 23 April 2013; revision received 31 December 2013; accepted for
publication 6 January 2014; published online 11 June 2014. Copyright
2013 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All
rights reserved. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use,
on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include
the code 1533-3884/14 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
*Assistant Professor, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, P.O. Box
80204; bkada@kau.edu.sa. Member AIAA.
1999
real-world scenarios, most of these observers continuously update a
linearization around the current state estimate, use a large number of
filters, or represent the target maneuver as a white noise process,
which could be inappropriate in the case of abrupt target maneuvers
or in the presence of measurement noises [21,22].
Recently, and due to their impressive performance and strong
robustness, high-order sliding modes (HOSMs), such as smooth
second-order sliding modes, outer-loop sliding modes, and homoge-
neous sliding modes, have been successfully involved in the design of
guidance and control systems [2330]. High-order robust exact
differentiators (HOREDs) have also been successfully employed as
observers in homing interceptor guidance loops. It was shown in [24]
that HOREDs give a good estimate of the target acceleration from
available measurements such as line-of-sight (LOS) range and angle,
closing velocity, and interceptor orientation. The authors found that
the guidance law using HOREDs results in less maneuverability ratio
close to the endgame of the homing loop as compared to the APN
guidance law. In [31], it was also found that control loops including
HOREDs achieved better performance when compared to those
using EKF. It is worth noting that homogeneous or arbitrary-
order sliding-mode controllers (AOSMCs) and HOREDs show
impressive characteristics such as high tracking accuracy, finite-time
convergence, robustness against disturbances, and the ability to cope
with situations involving discontinuous dynamics, which is suitable
with regard to the interception missions [3237].
 2000 KADA

In this paper, a preliminary investigation is performed to design an Px  Lrf x; f x0  0
Qx  Lg Lr1
integrated robust arbitrary-order sliding-mode homing guidance
(AOSMHG) system to successfully intercept highly maneuvering are some bounded continuous functions on an open set X xo  X
targets with near-to-zero miss distance, less interceptor acceleration surrounding a given initial condition xo with
demand, and minimum control effort. To reach this objective, a
strategy that combines AOSMCs, HOREDs, nonlinear engagement
jPxj C; K m Qx K M (4)
geometry, and nonlinear interceptor dynamics in one guidance and
control system is adopted. To implement this strategy, advanced
guidance laws [i.e., APN and direct collision or hit-to-kill (HTK)] are
used as sliding manifolds. In addition, and based upon the arbitrary- K m , K M , and C are some positive constants; and Lf  and Lg 
order feature of AOSMCs and HOREDs, the relative degrees of the are the Lie derivatives.
controllers and observers are artificially increased to enhance the Assumption A4: Under a local diffeomorphic coordinate transfor-
performance of the AOSMHG system, remove chattering effect, and mation (i.e., invertible diffeomorphism) k  k1 (k  1; : : : ; r),
improve observation accuracy. For realistic scenarios, the target nominal system (1) is feedback equivalent to the following
acceleration is estimated from available measurements using arbi- controllable canonical form:
trary orders of HOREDs. To the authors knowledge, AOSMHG
system is the first to focus on missile homing guidance design using _  Ax  Bxu (5)
AOSMCs, HOREDs, and nonlinear interceptor model.
The outline of the remaining of the paper is as follows. Section II with
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

describes the mathematical formulation of HSMCs and HOREDs.

In Sec. III, nonlinear kinematics and dynamics of the interception A   Lf L2f ::: Lr1 Lrf T x (6)
f
process are formulated. The design and mechanization of the
AOSMHG strategy are presented in Sec. IV. The performance and
robustness of AOSMHG laws are analyzed and discussed in Secs. V
and VI, respectively. Finally, Sec. VII summarizes the key results and B  0 0 ::: 0 f  x0 
Lg Lr1 T
(7)
concludes the paper.

The result is that the trajectories of system (1) are understood in the
Filippov sense, and they are infinitely extendible in time for any
II. High-Order Sliding Modes: Control control input u provided that this control is a Lebesgue-measurable
and Observation function and that new auxiliary system (5) has a locally bounded
A. Problem Statement right-hand side.
Consider the following class of smooth nonlinear dynamic
systems, B. Homogeneous High-Order Sliding-Mode Controllers
Theorem 1 [32,34,35]: Let assumptions A1A4 hold; bounded r-
x_  fx  gxu (1a)
sliding-modes feedback controllers ur of the form

yx  x (1b) ur  Gr1;r ; _ : : : ; r1  (8)

where x Rn is the state vector, f and g are uncertain smooth can be constructed in new constraint space (5) to drive the output x
function vectors, u R is an affine control input, y  R is an and its successive time derivatives k k  1; : : : ; r 1  toward
observed or measured output signal, and n is the system dimension. their zero level in finite time and in spite of internal and external
Typical uncertainties include modeling errors, unmodeled dynamics, disturbances.
actuator and sensor nonlinearities, delays, measurement noises, and The magnitude G is an adjustable positive gain. Feedback
bounded external disturbances. equation (8) is the basic equation of a class of high-order sliding-
Let system (1) be closed by some dynamical discontinuous mode controllers that are defined by recursive procedures. One of the
feedback; based upon the Filippov solution trajectories, the control most impressive families of these controllers is the following quasi-
problem considered here aims to design high-order sliding modes continuous homogeneous r-sliding controllers constructed based on
that are able to fulfill the constraint x  0 after a finite-time the homogeneity approach:
transient and retain it afterwards in spite of internal and external
disturbances. To do so, the following assumptions are considered: r1;r
Assumption A1: The output constraint x is supposed to be of the ur  Gr1;r  G (9a)
N r1;r
r-order differentiability class, where r defines the relative degree of
x with respect to the control input u. The degree r is supposed to be The functions r and N r are computed using the following recursive
constant and known. procedure
Assumption A2: The function x and its successive time for k  0:
derivatives k x up to r 1 are continuous functions of x and form
the following nonempty integral set: 
0;r 
(9b)
r  fx Xjx  _ x  : : :  r1 x  0g N 0;r  jj

integral set (2) for 1 k < r 1,

where X Rn denotes the operating space of system (1). 

k;r  k  k N rkrk1 k1;r N k1;r
Assumption A3: If assumptions A1 and A2 hold, x satisfies the k1;r
(9c)
following equality: N k;r  j k j  k N rkrk1
k1;r

r x  Px  Qxu (3) It is noted that the homogeneity features of dynamic systems provide
for the highest possible asymptotic accuracy for real-time control
where (i.e., discrete measurements with delays and measurement noises).
 KADA 2001

C. High-Order Robust Exact Differentiators R_  V R  V m cos m   V t cos t   (13a)

For a given relative degree r > 1, the real-time implementation of
the controllers [Eq. (9)] requires exact calculation or direct _  V R  V m sin m   V t sin t  R (13b)
measurement of (r 1)-order time derivatives of the output signal
x. The following high-order differentiators provide a practical
way to compute the signals k (k  1; : : : ; r 1) provided that r V_ R  V 2 R  Am sin m   At sin t    V 2 R  Am;R  At;R
is bounded [36,37]: (13c)

8
>
> for k  0
>
>
>
> z_  v0 ; v0  0 L1r jz0 jr1r signz0   z1
< 0
for 0 < k < r 1
(10)
>
> z_k  vk ; vk  k L1rk jzk vk1 jrk1rk signzk vk1   zk1
>
>
>
> for k  r 1
:
z_r1  r1 L signzr1 vr2 
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

where zk k and k are the differentiators (or observers) param- V_  V V R R Am cos m   At cos t  
eters, L is a known positive Lipschitz constant, and vk (k  0; : : : ;
r 2) denote the successive outputs of the differentiators. The  V V R R Am;  At; (13d)
controllers [Eq. (9)] together with the observers [Eq. (10)] produce r-
order real-time output-feedback controllers of the form The polar coordinates and R are given by

ur  Gr1;r z; z_ : : : ; zr1  (11)  artanht hm xt xm  (14)

The new controllers [Eq. (11)] possess the following properties:

q
Property P1: In the absence of measurement noises, the observer-
based controllers [Eq. (11)] provide for the finite-time convergence of R xt xm 2  ht hm 2 0 (15)
the output tracking variable x and its successive (r 1)-time
derivatives to their zero level. The subscripts m and t denote motion information of the missile and
Property P2: The controllers [Eq. (11)] feature high accuracy in target, whereas the subscripts R and signify radial and tangential
the presence of sampling noise and delays, and they ensure strong components, respectively.
robustness against disturbances.
Property P3: In case of x measurements corrupted by an B. Nonlinear Missile Interceptor Dynamics
unknown measurable noise of magnitude (i.e., a bounded The missile interceptor considered in this study is a hypothetical
Lebesgue-measurable function of time), the convergence to the tail-controlled missile where the nonlinear longitudinal motion (i.e.,
boundary layers j k j < k rkr (k  0; : : : ; r 1) is assured for pitch-plane motion) is governed by the following equations [28,37]:
some constants k > 0.
Property P4: The parameters G, k , and k have to be adjusted to
_  KZ M2 CD CZ ; M; c  sin  g sin m
M (16a)
reach the desired level of performance, and they can be adapted in real 0
vs
time. The value of the Lipschitz constant is subject to the following
condition [32]:
g
L C  GK M (12) _  KZ MCZ ; M; c  cos  cos m  q (16b)
vs M

Property P5: The performance of the closed-loop control can be

considerably improved, and the chattering effects can be efficiently g
_ m  K Z MCZ ; M; c  cos cos m (16c)
removed by artificially increasing the relative degree r (i.e., the order vs M
of the controllers [Eq. (11)]).

q_  K M M2 CM ; M; c  (16d)
III. Kinematics and Dynamics of the Interception
Process
x_ m  Mvs cos m (16e)
In the geometric-based intercept approach, the missile and target
dynamics are combined with engagement kinematics to produce the
homing-missile engagement rules. By pointing its velocity vector at
the future position of the target, the intercept would benefit from
decreasing the required lateral acceleration and the final intercept time.

A. Planar Engagement Kinematics

The planar engagement model is often considered during the
endgame phase of the interception to derive the engagement kinemat-
ics. Assuming the target and interceptor as point masses moving at
constant speeds, one possible engagement process is presented in
Fig. 1 for which the kinematics are expressed, in polar coordinate
system, as follows: Fig. 1 Planar interceptor-target engagement geometry.
 2002 KADA

2 3
h_m  Mvs sin m (16f) V m cos m   V t cos t  
6 V m sin m   V t sin t  R 7
F 6
4
7
5 (24c)
where vs is the sound speed, and g is the gravitational acceleration. As V 2 R
the effect of the aerodynamic control c on the force coefficient is V V R R
negligible, the aerodynamic coefficients CZ and CM are given as
follows [38]:
  L  0 0 sin m  cos m   (24d)
M
CZ ; M  an 3  bn jj  cn 2 (17a)
3  
 0 0 sin t   cos t   (24e)
 
8M
CM ;M;c   am 3  bm jj  cm 7   em q  dm c
3
(17b)  Am (24f)

The coefficients KZ and KM are computed as follows:

v  At (24g)
KZ  0.7P0 Smvs (18a)
The vector   R V R V T R4 is the interception state
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

vector. In this representation,  Am is referred to as the control input

K M  0.7P0 SdI y (18b) to the guidance problem, whereas v  At is considered as external
disturbance [8]. The vector  R4 is the vector of matched
where P0 is the static pressure, S is the surface area, and I y is the pitch and unmatched disturbances, and  R is the guidance constraint
moment of inertia. Numerical values of various coefficients and that should be designed properly to satisfy the requirements of
physical parameters are available in [28,37,38]. State model (16) successful interception. The control problem represented by Eq. (24)
represents the dynamics of a single-input/multi-output system where is to seek for a feedback control law  v;  for which the
interception processes will be successfully achieved. To do so, the
x  M m q xm hm T (19) following assumptions are made:
Assumption A5: F  and L might be uncertain due to
interceptor parameterization uncertainties or target location and
y  M q Am T (20) target speed estimations.
Assumption A6: and are supposed to be unknown but bounded
in their Euclidian norms (i.e., k k2 max R and kk2
u  c (21) max R ).
Assumption A7: The case  0 corresponds to the nominal form
The output vector y is defined by the variables available for of model (24), and  0 corresponds to the nonmaneuvering target.
measurement M and q, and the missile normal acceleration Am
computed in (g) from B. Missile Lethality Model
A target tracking and interception mission can be successfully
Am  K Z M2 CZ ; M (22) achieved if the condition V R  R_ < 0 or V  0 (i.e., _  0) is
guaranteed. In the present study, the interception mission is
C. Actuator Dynamics
considered successfully achieved if the following lethality condition
(LC) is satisfied:
Actuators are inherently nonlinear devices exhibiting highly 
nonlinear dynamics of unknown order. To simplify the task, and 1 if Rf Rl
without exceeding the hardware capabilities, we incorporate the LC  (25)
0 if Rf > Rl
actuator dynamics into the guidance loop as a function of the relative
degree r through the following state model: where Rf denotes the value of the range R at the time of interception,
 and Rl denotes the lethal or kill radius that defines the zero-intercept
a _ k  k1 1 k r 1 condition depending on the target size. This condition also guaran-
(23)
a _ r  f; rc  tees the lethality model in terms of miss distance [17]. The engage-
ment process is interrupted when the first condition in model (25) is
where Rr and a > 0 are the state vector and time constant of the fulfilled and the corresponding time tf is considered as the impact
actuator, respectively, whereas f; c  could be a locally bounded time or the final intercept time. The two measures Rf and tf are
Borel-measurable function (rc is the input of the actuator).

IV. Arbitrary-Order Sliding-Mode-Based Homing

Guidance: Design and Mechanization
A. Problem Formulation
A general state-space form corresponding to guidance problem (13)
can be formulated in the polar coordinate system R;  as follows:

_  F   L  v   (24a)

  0 (24b)

with Fig. 2 Missile and seeker orientations in an inertial reference [39].

 KADA 2003

Fig. 3 Block diagram for the real-time implementation of AOSMHG laws

p
considered among the indices that will be used in Secs. V and VI to DHK x  V  R;
_ LHK x  V c0 R (27)
evaluate the performance of the proposed guidance laws.
where c0 R .
Using the tracking functions APN , DHK , and LHK , three AOSM-
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

C. Interception Sliding Manifold Design

based guidance laws, i.e., AOSM-APN, AOSM-DHK, and AOSM-
As the design of the sliding manifold x is a critical aspect of any LHK are constructed and implemented.
sliding-mode guidance and control law, the sliding manifold
candidates are selected herein as functions of the LOS rate . _ The
D. Homing Loop Elements
selection of _ as commanded output has a great importance for both
physical principle and mechanization of the guidance laws, as is In missile dynamic model (16), the normal acceleration Am has a
shown in the Sec. IV.E. relative degree r  2 with respect to the fin deflection c [28]. As the
relative degree of the outputs V and V R with respect to Am is 1 [see
1. APN-Based Guidance interception model (24)], the result is that the inputoutput dynamics
V c and V R c both have a relative degree r  3. This degree
It is well known that APN guidance attempts to minimize the miss
is considered as the minimum order required for the construction of the
distance via mechanization of the missile acceleration command Am
controllers [Eq. (11)] that could be artificially increased for enhanced
normal to its velocity vector. By adding a term to compensate for
performance and robustness. In the sequel, third- and fourth-order
target acceleration, APN guidance law yields superior performance
controllers, differentiators (observers), and actuators are constructed to
against a highly maneuvering target when compared to the traditional
compute the commanded fin deflection c to achieve a successful
navigation laws. For this reason, an APN-based sliding manifold
interception:
candidate is taken as
Controllers:
 A
APN x  N V R _  t; Am c  Gr1;r z0 ; z1 ; : : : ; zr1  (28)
2
 A
t
 N V R _  cos t   Am (26) with
2

where At;  At cos t   denotes the target acceleration trans- c  G3  G N2;3
2;3
for r  3
versal to the LOS. To ensure good dynamic performance, the (29)
c  G4  G N3;4 for r  4
navigation constant N is generally selected in the range of 3 to 5. 3;4

8
>
> 0;r  z0  ; N 0;r  jz0 j  jj
< for k  1; :::;r1
rkrk1 (30)
>
> k;r  zk k N k1;r k1;r N k1;r ; N k;r  jzk jk N rkrk1
k1;r
: k
 zk
Differentiators (observers):
8
>
> for k  0; :::;r2
<
z_k  vk ;vk  k L1rk jzk vk1 jrk1r1 signzk vk1 zk1 ; v1 
(31)
> z_2  2 Lsignz2 v1 
> for r  3
:
z_3  3 Lsignz3 v2  for r  4

Table 1 Simulation parameters for an

Evasive Circular Maneuver
2. Hit-to-Kill-Based Guidance
To reduce the weight and cost of todays interceptor missiles, the Interceptor Target
HTK guidance is proposed to kill the threat directly by body-to-body V m0  3M V t  2M
contact without need of the warhead. In terms of sliding-mode Am0  0g At  10g
manifold candidates, two velocity tracking errors are used to imple- m0  86 deg t0  0 deg
xm0  0 m xt0  0 m
ment direct hit-to-kill (DHK) guidance and less-aggressive hit-to-kill
hm0  3000 m ht0  10; 000 m
(LHK) guidance, respectively [24]:
 2004 KADA
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

Fig. 4 Circular air-to-air interception: a) engagement trajectories, b) LOS range R, c) acceleration demand, and d) control effort.

Linear actuators: loop autopilot is used to improve the transient response of the missile
interceptor. From state model (16) and aerodynamic model (17b), the
8
> _  2 inputoutput dynamics c qc are derived as follows:
>
>.a 1
< 2
.. _
qK M M CM ;M;c 
(32)    
>
> _  r 8M
>
: a _ r1
a r  a0 1 : : : ar1 r  rc KM M2 am 3 bm jjcm 7 em qK M M2 dm c
3
(33)
The function in Eqs. (30) and (31) denotes indifferently the sliding-
mode variables APN , DHK , or LHK. The conditions [Eq. (4)] and the As the relative degree of the inner-loop output is rq  1, a first-order
Lipschitz constant [Eq. (12)] associated to the sliding variables sliding-mode controller could be designed using the pitch rate
[Eq. (26)] and [Eq. (27)] are illustrated in Appendix A. tracking error q  q qc as a sliding manifold. Regulation
condition (3) becomes
E. Inner-Loop Autopilot Design
The stability of the outer-loop sliding-mode controllers requires an _ q  q_ q_ c
     
inner-loop controller design to follow the pitch rate commands qc 8M
produced in these outer-loop controllers. As the major aim of  KM M2 am 3  bm jj  cm 7   em q q_ c
3
interception laws (26) and (27) is to follow the acceleration or speed
commands, which are realized in the outer-loop control, the inner-  K M M 2 dm c (34)

Table 2 Homing performance for circulation air-to-air interception

Guidance law Interception time tf , s Final range Rf , m Miss distance jht hm j, m Maxjc j, deg MaxjAm j, g V m range, M
AOSM-APN third order 20.723 0.410 0.358 2.635 8.4687 [3.000, 3.035]
AOSM-APN fourth order 20.755 0.117 0.106 2.667 8.4301 [2.996, 3.030]
AOSM-DHK third order 20.832 0.189 0.109 2.755 8.4669 [2.991, 3.020]
AOSM-DHK fourth order 20.702 0.004 0.004 2.607 8.4167 [3.000, 3.038]
AOSM-LHK third order 20.827 0.121 0.064 2.749 8.4642 [2.991, 3.021]
AOSM-LHK fourth order 20.702 0.030 0.029 2.607 8.4168 [3.000, 3.038]
 KADA 2005

with KM M2 dm 0. Using the controller topology [Eq. (9)], the Table 3 Simulation parameters for
inner-loop autopilot has the following form: interception of a target with intelligent evasion
capabilities
Interceptor Target
c;q
r1  G sign 
q (35)
V m0  1.5M V t  1.5M
Am0  0g At0  0g
m0  0 deg t0  180 deg
As the controllers [Eq. (9)] establish finite-time stable r-sliding-mode xm0  0 m xt0  2500 m
 0 [31,33], the pitch rate dynamics _ q convergence is zero level in hm0  0 m ht0  0 m
finite time.
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

Fig. 5 Time histories of sliding variables and their time derivatives for third- and fourth-order controllers: a) APN sliding modes, b) direct-hit-to-kill
sliding modes, and c) less-hit-to-kill sliding modes.
 2006 KADA
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

Fig. 6 Evasive interception: a) engagement trajectories, b) LOS range R, c) acceleration demand, and d) control effort.

F. Mechanization of AOSMHG Laws and Conceptual Solutions body centerline, respectively. Figure 2 illustrates the different angles
Central to the mechanization of any intercepting guidance law is needed to the implementation of such an approach.
the construction of the LOS angular rate .
_ Instead of an analytical In [40], the authors found that using models (36)(37) to
derivation of expression (14), which requires reconstruction of reconstruct _ yields an excessive amplification of measurement noise
unmeasured parameters, a numeric derivative of could be obtained if the responsiveness of the interceptor to the commands is slow. As
by passing it through the following derivative filter: an alternative, in the present study, the signal _ is constructed from
Eqs. (14) and (36), which need only the measurement of missile and
s
_ s target positions. In the absence of an accurate model, xM , hM , V M ,
 (36) and m could be provided by an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and
s f s  1
GPS system, and the relative degree r could be estimated from input
where f is the time constant of the filter, and s is the Laplace
operator. This numerical derivation yields better performance than Table 5 Simulation parameters for
the analytical one [39]. The LOS angle in Eq. (36) could be interception of weaving target
constructed from seeker measurements as follows [40]:
Interceptor Target
Z Z
V m0  1.7M V t  1M
    _ dt;      _ dt (37) Am0  0g t max  11.5 deg
m0  15 deg  4.5 rads
xm0  0 m xt0  10; 000 m
where the overbar denotes a measured quantity; and , , and are hm0  0 m ht0  5000 m
the seeker dish angle, gimbal angle, and inertial angle to the missile

Table 4 Homing performances for interception of a target with intelligent evasion capabilities
Guidance law Interception time tf , s Final range Rf , m Miss distance jht hm j, m Maxjc j, deg MaxjAm j, g V m range, M
AOSM-APN third order 2.772 0.252 0.013 14.892 6.743 [1.496, 1.503]
AOSM-APN fourth order 2.770 0.243 0.005 13.515 6.285 [1.498, 1.504]
AOSM-DHK third order 2.767 0.277 0.201 13.975 6.321 [1.500, 1.517]
AOSM-DHK fourth order 2.767 0.141 0.007 11.655 5.659 [1.500, 1.501]
AOSM-LHK third order 2.767 0.171 0.125 13.460 6.508 [1.499, 1.511]
AOSM-LHK fourth order 2.767 0.049 0.014 11.600 5.636 [1.500, 1.510]
 KADA 2007
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

Fig. 7 Weaving interception: a) engagement trajectories, b) LOS range R, c) acceleration demand and d) control effort.

output measurements. The differentiator [Eq. (36)] is used as a
guidance filter to compute the LOS rate _ out of the flight control
system and independent from the interceptor dynamics, as shown
in Fig. 3
V. Homing Performance Analysis
To give perspective to the proposed guidance strategy and to
understand how interception key elements affect the accuracy and
robustness of the AOSMHG loop, we carry out, in this and the next
section, many computer simulations involving 1) a target with known,
evasive, and agile maneuvers; 2) interceptor dynamics with large error
modeling and parameter uncertainties; and 3) target maneuver estima-
tion from noise-corrupted measurements,. The intent of simulating
various interception scenarios is to measure the accuracy, agility,
maneuverability, and adaptability of each AOSMHG law for various
classes of problems. In all simulations, the lethality radius Rl in
Eq. (25), the guidance constant N in Eq. (26), and the constant c0 in
Eq. (27) are set to be Rl  0.5 m, N  3, and c0  1, respectively.
In this section, the three selected scenarios are run assuming
perfect knowledge of target maneuvers and using the nominal form of
interception model (24) (i.e.,  0). For comparison purposes, the
AOSMHG laws are applied simultaneously for each scenario using
two relative degrees (i.e., r  3 and r  4).
A. Target Performing an Evasive Circulation Maneuver
In this scenario, the missile is supposed to intercept a target that
performs an evasive circular trajectory governed by the following
equations of motion:
x_ t  V t cost t  t0  (38a)
h_t  V t sint t  t0  (38b)
_ t  t  At V t (38c)
The engagement process starts from the initial conditions given in
Table 1. The engagement trajectories, LOS range, interceptor acceler-
ation demand, and control efforts are shown, respectively, in Fig. 4.
Detailed performance indices are presented in Table 2.

Table 6 Homing performances for interception of weaving target

Guidance law Interception time tf , s Final range Rf , m Miss distance jht hm j, m Maxjc j, deg MaxjAm j, g V m range, M
AOSM-APN third order 44.042 0.268 0.219 4.582 4.439 [1.701, 1.999]
AOSM-APN fourth order 41.951 0.217 0.110 3.636 3.614 [1.701, 2.060]
AOSM-DHK third order 42.099 0.322 0.071 5.899 3.249 [1.694, 2.147]
AOSM-DHK fourth order 42.338 0.166 0.020 3.515 2.936 [1.701, 2.065]
AOSM-LHK third order 41.534 0.218 0.188 6.713 3.630 [1.687, 2.150]
AOSM-LHK fourth order 41.098 0.199 0.024 3.376 2.883 [1.701, 2.092]
 2008 KADA

Table 7 Simulation parameters for Table 8 Homing performance comparison

homing synthesis
Miss
Interceptor Target Interception distance Maxjc j, MaxjAm j,
V m0  1.21M V t  1.21M Guidance law time tf , s jht hm j, m deg g
Am0  0g At max  20g AOSM-APN 1.444 0.178 16.121 3.910
m0  25 deg t  0.05 s AOSM-DHK 1.444 0.027 16.303 3.950
xm0  0 m xt0  1000 m AOSM-LHK 1.444 0.062 16.364 3.963
hm0  0 m ht0  0 m Zeros-effort miss 1.490 0.300 30.000 55.00

The time histories of the sliding variables [Eqs. (26) and (27)] and C. Target with Sinusoidal Change in Heading (Weaving Target)
their successive time derivatives up to (r 1) are depicted in Fig. 5. In this case, and from the initial conditions shown in Table 5, the
target is supposed to perform a sinusoidal heading maneuver of the form
B. Target with Intelligent Evasion Capabilities
In this scenario, the target is supposed to know the position of the _ t  t;max sint (40a)
pursuer, and it would perform jumps or abrupt changes in the
direction of motion as follows:
At  _ t V t (40b)
if R > R1 : h_t  0 (39a)
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

if R1 < R R2 : h_t 0 (39b)
if R R1 : h_t  0 (39c)
Both the interceptor and target are supposed to fly straight courses,
starting from the initial conditions given in Table 3 with R1  500 m
and R2  375 m. Figure 6 depicts the time histories of the engage-
ment parameters, and Table 4 presents the performance indices.
Figure 7 shows close-up views of trajectories, LOS range,
interceptor normal acceleration, and control effort; and Table 6 gives
detailed results of the homing performance.
According to the preceding results, the proposed AOSMHG
laws demonstrate good performance and successfully fulfill lethality
model (24). On the other hand, it appears that artificially increasing
the relative degree of the controllers [Eq. (11)] improves homing
performance indices mainly in the interception time tf , acceleration
demand Am , and control effort c , and it removes the chattering effects.

Fig. 8 Sample run for homing synthesis: a) engagement trajectories, b) LOS range, c) acceleration demand, and d) control effort.
 KADA 2009
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

Fig. 9 AOSMHG laws sensitivity to parameter uncertainty: a) flight time, b) miss range, c) control effort, and d) acceleration demand.

VI. Performance Comparison and Robustness Issues measurement noises are discussed. Based upon the results obtained in
The engagement scenarios illustrated in the previous section were the previous section, only the fourth-order AOSMHG laws are
accomplished without including disturbances, target maneuver applied in the following scenarios.
estimation, and measurement noises. In the present section, compar-
ison to other guidance systems, sensitivity to parametric uncertainties A. Performance Comparison and Sensitivity to Modeling Errors
and modeling errors, real-time observation, and robustness against To compare the performance of the proposed AOSMHG laws with
other guidance systems, a scenario similar to the one proposed in [41]
is considered. The simulation parameters are selected as shown in
Table 9 Simulation parameters for Table 7. The engagement trajectories are plotted in Fig. 8, and a
interception using target maneuver performance comparison is shown in Table 8.
estimation
To evaluate the sensitivity of the AOSMHG laws to parameter
Interceptor Target uncertainties and modeling errors, a series of simulations that
V m0 : 3M V t : 3M correspond to different values of the bound max of the uncertainties
Am0 : 0g At0 : 0g  in Eq. (24) are carried out and a polynomial fitting curve is used.
m0 : 45 deg t0 : 180 deg The results of these simulations are shown in Fig. 9.
xm0 : 0 m xt0 : 25,000 m The results shown in Table 8 indicate that AOSMHG laws
hm0 : 0 m ht0 : 20,000 m guarantee better interception performance as compared to the guid-
ance system proposed in [41]. From Fig. 9, it is apparent that

Table 10 Homing performance of interception with target maneuver estimation

Guidance law Interception time tf , s Final range Rf , m Miss distance jht hm j, m Am;max At;max
AOSM-APN without estimation 20.7260 0.3375 0.3108 0.91378
AOSM-APN with estimation and without noise 20.7250 0.2198 0.1370 0.83975
AOSM-APN with estimation and with noise 20.7400 0.2077 0.0458 1.68787
AOSM-DHK without estimation 20.7260 0.1484 0.1216 0.84181
AOSM-DHK with estimation and without noise 20.7250 0.1405 0.1389 0.83975
AOSM-DHK with estimation and with noise 20.7400 0.1728 0.0045 1.68723
AOSM-LHK without estimation 20.7260 0.1579 0.1572 0.84121
AOSM-LHK with estimation and without noise 20.7250 0.0527 0.0465 0.83975
AOSM-LHK with estimation and with noise 20.7400 0.0578 0.0535 1.68737
 2010
Fig. 10 Target A^ t estimation using HOREDs.
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001
Fig. 11 Interception with target estimation and measurement noises.
parameter uncertainties and modeling errors have a nonlinear effect
on the AOSMHG performance. It follows that, even if the sliding
manifolds [Eqs. (26) and (27)] are sensitive to the unknown bounded
uncertainties , the AOSMHG laws compensate these uncertainties
very well.
B. Sensitivity to Target Maneuver Estimation and Measurement Noises
To simulate realistic interception missions and evaluate the
sensitivity of the AOSMHG to measurement noises, a target that,
being aware of an interception attempt, randomly performs an
evasive maneuver to escape from the pursuer is considered. The target
executes an evasive maneuver of 5g-turn down followed by 10g-
weave change in the normal acceleration.
In this simulation, the target acceleration At; is constructed from its
position and orientation measurements using the observers [Eq. (10)],
and the time derivative _ is computed using the derivative filter
[Eq. (36)] with time constant f  0.001 s. The scenario parameters
are defined in Table 9.
An angular zero-mean additive white Gaussian-distributed noise
with a standard deviation of 1 deg is added to the measured _ in the
seeker system.
As can be seen from Fig. 10, the accuracy and convergence of the
target maneuver estimate increase with an increase in the order of the
observers [Eq. (10)]. Figure 11 shows that interception trajec-
tories obtained by the three AOSMHG laws are similar, and from
Table 10 it can be seen that AOSMHG with target maneuver
estimation yields minimum miss distance and, in the absence of
measurement noises, results in less missile acceleration demand as
compared to the one without estimation of target acceleration.
VII. Conclusions
This paper demonstrates that homogeneous high-order sliding-
mode controllers and observers can provide a convenient and effective
KADA
framework for the design of real-time enhanced homing-missile
guidance laws. Using the arbitrary-order feature of these controllers
and observers, both APN-based and HTK-based AOSMHG schemes
have shown their potential to successfully intercept highly maneu-
verable targets during endgame scenarios. Simulation results proved
that the AOSMHG yields high collision accuracy and substan-
tial improvement of homing-missile guidance performance, such as
near-to-zero miss-distance, reduced maneuverability ratio require-
ments, and unsaturated control effort, even when considering the
unknown shape of the target maneuver, target maneuver estimation, or
measurement noises. In addition, the AOSMHG has demonstrated
high robustness against parametric uncertainties. It was also found that
artificially increasing the relative degree of the AOSMHG laws results
in enhanced control performance, high observation accuracy, and
smooth control signal. Finally, the following topics will be considered
for future works: three-dimensional implementation with more evasive
scenarios, multiple target interception, Monte Carlo runs, and more
investigation of the missile interceptor dynamic model.
Appendix:
A1 Sliding Mode Variable DHK  R1
The successive time derivatives up to r order of the expression
R1 are given by the following recursive procedure
8
>
> R1 1  R1 1  R2
>
< R1 2  R2 1  2R1 2  R3
.. (A1)
>
> .P
>
:
R1 r  Rr 1  r 1kr1 Rk rk1  Rr1
In case of r  3
 KADA 2011

3 1 3

DHK  R   R3 1  3R2 2  3R1 3  R4 2V V 3R 2V V 2R 2V R
PLHK  A2
t;   A  2A1 1
m sin m m
(A2) R3 R2 R t;
3c0 V R V 2 3c V 3R c V
Using the interception model (13), the expression A2 becomes A2
m cos m  p  0 2 p   0p A
4 R R 2 8 R R R R t;
 1  2  3 3c V c c0 1
V V V V 0 pR At;R  p0 A1
t;R  p Am sin m (A11)
3 2
DHK  V R  3V 1
R  3V R R 4 R R 2 R 2 R
R R R R
2V V 3R 2V V 2R 2V R
  Am;  At;  A2 2
m;  At; (A3)
R3 R2 R 2V R
QLHK  cos m  cos m 1 2 2
m   sin m m
R
With m  m , the second time derivative of the missile V 3 VR 1
2
acceleration transversal to the LOS Am; is p cos m p sin m  p cos m _ m (A12)
R R 4 R R 2 R
A2 2 1 1
m;  Am cos m 2Am sin m m The inequalities [Eq. (4)] and the Lipchitz constant in [Eq. 12] are
Am cos m 1 2 2
m   sin m m  (A4) approximated by

2V max max 3
V R  2V max V max 2 2V max
and the expression (A3) jPLHK j A2;max
t;   2R  R Amaxt;
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

R3l Rl Rl
2V V 3R 2V V 2R 2V R 3c0 V max max 2 3c V max 3
3 A A2 R V 
2
DHK   t; Am cos m  2A1
m m
1;max
 A2
m  p  0 2Rp
R3 R2 R t; 4 2
Rl Rl 8 Rl Rl
 
2V R
2A1 1
m sin m m  cos m cos m 1 2 2
m  sin m m Am c0 V max 3c V max
c
R  p Amax 0 p R 1;max
 Amax  p0 At;R
Rl Rl t; 4 Rl Rl t;R 2 Rl
 PDHK QDHK Am (A5) c cK
 0p2Z A1
m  CLHK (A13)
2 Rl
Under the constraints jAk k max
m; j Am , jAk k;max
t; j At; , Rl R
Rt  0  R0 0, j cos j 1, j sin j 1, and k;min k
min

min

k;max , the functions PDHK and QDHK in [Eq. A5] are bounded
2V

V

3V min

K m;LHK 

 j1;min m 2  2;min
m j

p 

R
p 

functions and verify the inequalities [Eq. (4)] R0 R0 R0 4R0 R0

max

1

2V

2V V 3R

2V V 2R

2V R


p _ min
QLHK
R
 j1;max 2  2;max j
jPDHK j jA2 j




A
 jA2
m cos m j 2 R0 m

R
m m
t;
R3

R2

R t
l

max

V

3V max

1

2V max max 3
V R  2V max V max 2 

p 

R
p 

p _ max

m
 K M;LHK (A14)
 2jA1 1 2;max
m sin m m j At;  3
 2R Rl Rl 4Rl Rl 2 Rl
Rl Rl
2V max
 R
Amax
t  A2;max
m  2A2;max
m 1;max
m  CDHK (A6)
Rl 2V max max 3
V R 
LDHK A2;max
t;  3
 A2;max
m  2A1;max
m 1;max
m
Rl
2V min V max
3V max
K m;DHK  R
 1;min 2  2;min QDHK  1;max
m 2  2;max
m  p   pR
 (A15)
R0
m m Rl Rl 4Rl Rl
2V max
R
 1;max
m 2  2;max
m  K M;DHK (A7)
Rl

With 0 < Rl 1 and sup jr1;r j  1, the Lipchitz constant in A3 Sliding Mode Variable APN 
A
[Eq. 12] is approximated by NV R 1  2t;  Am
The third time derivative of the sliding mode variable APN is
2V max V max 3
LDHK A2;max
t;  3R  A2;max
m     1  2
Rl 3 V 2 V 1 V
3
APN  N V R  3V R  3V R
R R R
 2A1;max
m 1;max
m  1;max
m 2  2;max
m (A8)  3   
V N 3 V
 VR  At; A3 m  NV R
3
R 2 R
p
A2 Sliding Mode Variable LHK  R1 c0 R NV 2
3 R
RV 1 VRV
For the sliding mode variable LHK , [Eq. (3)] is written as follows R2
 
  NV 1 2 1 1 2V 2R V
p 3 3 2 R
RV V R V 2V R V 
3
LHK  R 1 3 c
0 R  PLHK  QLHK Am (A9) R R

NV R 3 V V R  3V R V  3V R V 2 
2 1 1
V
With the following time derivative R R
1 1 
   2  2V R V V R 2V 2R V 4V 3R V  2V 3R V
p 3 V 3 V R V 1 3 V 3R 
c0 R  c0 pR R
p  p 
 (A10) R2 R3
2 R 4 R R 8 R2 R
N
 A3 A3
m  PAPN  QAPN Am A16
One can find that 2 t;
 2012 KADA

With Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research
A2 2 1 1
m;R  Am sin m  2Am cos m m (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under grant number 135-
030-D1434. The author, therefore, acknowledges with thanks the
Am sin m 1 2 2
m   cos m m  (A17)
DSR for technical and financial support.
One can find that
  References
V 2
V 1
R   At;R  sin m Am  P1  Q1 Am (A18) [1] Nesline, F. W., and Zarchan, P., A New Look at Classical vs. Modern
R
Homing Missile Guidance, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1981, pp. 7885.
  doi:10.2514/3.56054
3V R V 2 2V [2] Lin, C. F., Modern Navigation, Guidance and Control Processing,
V 2   1 1
A  Am cos m  At;R PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991, pp. 252413.
R
R2 R t; [3] Ghose, D., On the Generalization of True Proportional Navigation,
 
2V IEEE Transaction on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 30, No. 2,
 cos m sin m _ m Am  P2  Q2 Am (A19) 1994, pp. 545555.
R
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001

2  3
3V 4 12V 2R V 2
R3
  4VRR2V At; R2 A2m;  A2t;   2VR A1
R3
6V R V
R3
1
m cos m  At; 
V 3
R 
4 5
3V 2 1 1 2 1 1
R3 Am sin m  At;R   Am sin m  2Am cos m m
 
4 2V 3V 2
 cos m At;  sin m _ m 3 cos m _ m sin m 1 2 2
m  cos m m Am  P3  Q3 Am (A20)
R R R

 
VRV
V 1
  At; Am cos m  P4  Q4 Am (A21)
R

2 3
2V V 2R V 3  
V V VR V
V 2
4 R
A A A1
m cos  A 1 5  cos sin  sin
_
m m Am  P5  Q5 Am (A22)
R2 R t; R t;R m t;
R m
R m

2  3
4V V 3R 2V 3 V R  2 
V V3 V V3 VR V 2 V V3
6 2 R 3 R   3 R2 2 R2 At; 
4 RR 3 3 RR 3 4V
R  2 R2 At;R R At; At;R
R V V R V 2 7
V 3
4
6 R3 7
5
 
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
 R Am; Am;R R Am cos m  At; R Am sin m  At;R  Am cos m 2Am sin m m  At;
2 VR V

2   3
V 2R V 2
6 3 R 2 2 R 2 cos m  4V R V
R  2 VR V
R 2 sin m 2
R A t;R cos m  A t; sin 
m 7
4 5Am  P6  Q6 Am (A23)
1 2 2
R sin m m  R cos m m cos m m  sin m m
VR _ V _

After certain rearrangements, the functions PAPN and QAPN in [Eq. A16] take the forms
2 3
R3 P2 P4  Q2 Q4 A2m 2 R3 P1 P5  Q1 Q5 A2m   3V
R2

P21  Q21 A2m 
6 9V R 8V 2R V 7
4  R2 P1 P4  Q1 Q4 Am  R3 P1  R2 P2 R P3
4V R V V
PAPN  N 6 2 7
5 (A24)
2V 3 3V 2R 4V 4R V 2V 4R V A3 A3
 R3R P4  R2
P5 VR
R P6  R3
 R4
 t;
2 m
N

2 3
R3 P2 Q4  P4 Q2  R3 P1 Q5  P5 Q1   R92 V R P1 Q4  P4 Q1   R22 P1 Q1 V
QAPN  N 4 8V 2R V 2V 3R 3V 2R
5 (A25)
R3
Q1  4VRR2V Q2 VR Q3  R3
Q4  R2
Q5 VRR Q6

The constraints jPAPN j CAPN and Km;APN QAPN K M;APN in [Eq. (4)] could be easily verified using the bounds of the functions Pi and Qi
(i  1; : : : ; 6). The Lipchitz constant satisfies
2 A3;max 3
3;max 2V 4;max V max 8V 2;max V max 2V 3;max
t;
2  Am  R
R4l

 R
R3l

Pmax
1  R
R3
Pmax
4
LAPN N 4 5 (A26)
8V 2;max V max 2V R3;max 4;max max
4V R V
 R
R3l

Qmax
1  R3l
Qmax
4  R3l
 KADA
[4] Zarchan, P., Tactical, and Strategic Missile Guidance, Progress in
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 3rd ed., Vol. 176, AIAA, Reston, VA, 1997,
p. 599.
[5] Cloutier, J. R., Evers, J. H., and Feeley, J. J., Assessment of Air-to-
Air Missile Guidance and Control Technology, Control Systems
Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 6, 1989, pp. 2734.
doi:10.1109/37.41440
[6] Inncenti, M., Nonlinear Guidance Techniques for Agile Missiles,
Control Engineering Practice, Vol. 9, No. 10, 2001, pp. 11311144.
doi:10.1016/S0967-0661(01)00094-6
[7] Vathsal, S., and Sarkar, A. K., Current Trends in Tactical Missile
Guidance, Defence Science Journal, Vol. 55, No. 2, 2005, pp. 265280.
[8] Moon, J., and Kim, Y., Design of Missile Guidance Law via Variable
Structure Control, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol. 24, No. 4, 2001, pp. 659664.
doi:10.2514/2.4792
[9] Shashi, R. K., Sachit, R., and Debasish, G., Sliding-Mode Guidance
and Control for All-Aspect Interceptors with Terminal Angle Con-
straints, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 4,
2012, pp. 12301246.
doi:10.2514/1.55242
[10] Gholson, N. H., and Moose, R. L., Maneuvering Target Tracking Using
Downloaded by University of Toronto on November 19, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G000001
Adaptive State Estimation, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems, Vol. AES-13, No. 3, 1977, pp. 310317.
doi:10.1109/TAES.1977.308399
[11] Vergez, P. L., and Liefer, R. K., Target Acceleration Modeling for
Tactical Missile Guidance, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1984, pp. 315321.
doi:10.2514/3.19861
[12] Zarchan, P., Representation of Realistic Evasive Maneuvers by the
Use of Shaping Filters, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol. 2, No. 4, 1979, pp. 290295.
doi:10.2514/3.55877
[13] Uhrmeister, B., Kalman Filter for a Missile with Radar and/or Imaging
Sensor, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 17, No. 6,
1994, pp. 13391344.
doi:10.2514/3.21353
[14] Pan, S., Su, H., Chu, J., and Wang, H., Applying a Novel Extended
Kalman Filter to MissileTarget Interception with APN Guidance Law:
A Benchmark Case Study, Control Engineering Practice, Vol. 18,
No. 2, 2010, pp. 159167.
doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2009.09.010
[15] Zhao, H., Liu, W. J., Yang, J. H., and Xuan, Y. B., Design of Stochastic
Sliding Mode Variable Structure Guidance Law Based on Adaptive
EKF, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 23, Dec. 2011, pp. 125130.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2477
[16] Oshman, Y., Shinar, J., and Avrashi-Weizman, S., Using a Multiple
Model Adaptive Estimator in a Random Evasion Missile/Aircraft
Encounter, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 24,
No. 6, 2001, pp. 11761186.
doi:10.2514/2.4833
[17] Shima, T., Oshman, Y., and Shinar, J., Efficient Multiple Model Adaptive
Estimation in Ballistic Missile Interception Scenarios, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2002, pp. 667675.
doi:10.2514/2.4961
[18] Li, R. R., and Jilkov, V. P., Survey of Maneuvering Target Tracking,
Part V. Multiple Model Methods, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2005, pp. 12551321.
doi:10.1109/TAES.2005.1561886
[19] Bowran, C., Artificial Neural Network Approaches to Target Recog-
nition, Digital Avionic System Conference, AIAA, Washington, D.C.,
Oct. 1988, pp. 847857.
[20] Duh, F. B., and Lin, C. T., Tracking a Maneuvering Target Using
Neural Fuzzy Network, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Part B, Cybernetics, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2003, pp. 1633.
doi:10.1109/TSMCB.2003.810953
[21] Oshman, Y., and Arad, D., Enhanced Air-to-Air Missile Tracking
Using Target Orientation Observations, Journal of Guidance, Control,
and Dynamics, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2004, pp. 595606.
doi:10.2514/1.11155
[22] Atir, R., Hexner, G., and Weiss, H., Target Maneuver Adaptive
Guidance Law for a Bounded Acceleration Missile, Journal of
2013
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2010, pp. 695706.
doi:10.2514/1.47276
[23] Shtessel, Y. B., Shkolnikov, I. A., and Levant, A., Smooth Second-
Order Sliding Modes: Missile Guidance Application, Automatica,
Vol. 43, No. 8, 2007, pp. 14701476.
doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2007.01.008
[24] Tournes, C. H., and Hanks, G., Hypersonic Glider Control Using
Higher Order Sliding Mode Control, IEEE Southeastcon, IEEE,
Piscataway, NJ, April 2008, pp. 274279.
[25] Foreman, D. C., Tournes, C. H., and Shtessel, Y. B., Integrated Missile
Flight Control Using Quaternions and Third-Order Sliding Mode
Control, 11th International Workshop on Variable Structure Systems
(VSS), IEEE Conference Publications, June 2010, pp. 370375.
[26] Scott, J. E., and Shtessel, Y. B., Launch Vehicle Attitude Control Using
Higher Order Sliding Modes, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, AIAA Paper 2010-7724, Aug. 2010.
[27] Kada, B., Outer-Loop Sliding Mode Control Approach to Longitudinal
Autopilot Missile Design, Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress,
Vol. 18, Aug.Sept. 2011, pp. 1115711164.
doi:10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.03818
[28] Kada, B., Higher Order Sliding Mode Control for Missile Autopilot
Design, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,
No. 70, Oct. 2012, pp. 174178.
[29] Yamasaki, T., Balakrishnan, S. N., and Takano, H., Integrated Guidance
and Autopilot for a Path-Following UAV via High-Order Sliding Modes,
American Control Conference, IEEE, June 2012, pp. 143148.
[30] Shkolnikov, I. A., Shtessel, Y. B., Zarchan, P., and Lianos, D. P.,
Simulation Study of the Homing Interceptor Guidance Loop with
Sliding Mode Observers Versus Kalman Filter, Proceedings of AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA Paper 2001-
4216, Aug. 2001.
[31] Levant, A., Homogeneity Approach to High-Order Sliding Mode
Design, Automatica, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2005, pp. 823830.
doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2004.11.029
[32] Shtessel, Y. B., Fridman, L., and Zinober, A., Higher Order Sliding
Modes: Editorial, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear
Control, Special Issue on Advances in Higher Order Sliding Mode
Control, Vol. 18, Nos. 45, 2008, pp. 381384.
[33] Levant, A., and Pavlov, Y., Generalized Homogeneous Quasi-
Continuous Controllers, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear
Control, Vol. 18, Nos. 45, 2008, pp. 385398.
doi:10.1002/rnc.1199/(ISSN)1099-1239
[34] Levant, A., Robust Exact Differentiation via Sliding Mode Technique,
Automatica, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1998, pp. 379384.
doi:10.1016/S0005-1098(97)00209-4
[35] Levant, A., Arbitrary-Order Sliding Modes with Finite Time
Convergence, Proceeding of the 6th IEEE Mediterranean Conference
on Control and Systems, IEEE, Alghero, Sardinia, Italy, June 1998,
pp. 349354.
[36] Levant, A., Higher Order Sliding Modes, and Arbitrary-Order Exact
Robust Differentiation, Proceedings of the 6th European Control
Conference, Portugal, 2001, pp. 9961001.
[37] Xin, M., and Balakrishnan, S. N., Nonlinear H Missile Longitudinal
Autopilot Design with -D Method, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace
and Electronic Systems, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2008, pp. 4156.
doi:10.1109/TAES.2008.4516988
[38] Nicholas, R. A., and Reichert, R. T., Gain Scheduling for H-Infinity
Controllers: A Flight Control Example, IEEE Transaction on Control
Systems Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1993, pp. 6979.
doi:10.1109/87.238400
[39] Gutman, O., and Palmor, Z. J., Proportional Navigation Against
Multiple Targets, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol. 34, No. 6, 2011, pp. 17281733.
doi:10.2514/1.53373
[40] Palumbo, N. F., Blauwkamp, R. A., and Lloyd, J. M., Basic Principles
of Homing Guidance, Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Vol. 29,
No. 1, 2010, pp. 2541.
[41] Shima, T., Idan, M., and Golan, O. M., Sliding-Mode Control for
integrated Missile Autopilot Guidance, Journal of Guidance, Control,
and Dynamics, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2006, pp. 250260.
doi:10.2514/1.14951