Proceedings

Proceedings of
of the
the 20th
20th World
World Congress
Congress
The
The International
Proceedings Federation
of the
International 20th World
Federation of Automatic
Automatic Control
of Congress Control
Proceedings of the 20th World Congress
Toulouse,
The
Toulouse, France,
International
France, July
July 9-14,
Federation
9-14, 2017
of Automatic
2017 Control
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
The International
Toulouse, France,Federation of Automatic
July 9-14, 2017 Control
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017

ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15512–15517
Flight
Flight Dynamics
Dynamics &
& Control
Control for
for Smart
Smart
Flight
Flight Dynamics
Dynamics &
& Control
Control for
for Smart
Smart
Munition:
Munition: The
The ISL
ISL Contribution
Contribution
Munition: The ISL
Munition: The ISL Contribution
Contribution
∗ ∗∗
Spilios
Spilios Theodoulis
Theodoulis ∗∗∗ Philippe
Philippe Wernert Wernert ∗∗ ∗∗
∗∗
Spilios Theodoulis ∗ Philippe Wernert ∗∗
Spilios Theodoulis Philippe Wernert
∗
∗ Guidance, Navigation & Control Department, French-German
∗∗ Guidance, Navigation & Control Department, French-German
Guidance,
Research Navigation
Institute of & Control Department, French-German
∗
Research
Guidance, Institute of Saint-Louis
Saint-Louis
Navigation & Control (ISL),
(ISL), Saint-Louis,
Saint-Louis,
Department, 68128,
68128, France,
French-German France,
Research
Research Institute
Institute of Saint-Louis
(e-mail:
(e-mail: (ISL),
(ISL), Saint-Louis, 68128,
Saint-Louis,
Spilios.Theodoulis@isl.eu).
Spilios.Theodoulis@isl.eu).
of Saint-Louis 68128, France,
France,
∗∗ (e-mail:
∗∗ Guidance, Navigation
∗∗ Guidance, Navigation
∗∗ Guidance, (e-mail: Spilios.Theodoulis@isl.eu).
Navigation
&
&
&
Control
Control
Control
Department,
Department,
Spilios.Theodoulis@isl.eu).
Department,
French-German
French-German
French-German
Research
∗∗
Research Institute
Institute of
of Saint-Louis (ISL), Saint-Louis, 68128, France,
Guidance,
Research Institute of Saint-Louis
Navigation & Control
Saint-Louis
(e-mail:
(ISL),
(ISL), Saint-Louis,
Department,
Saint-Louis,
Philippe.Wernert@isl.eu).
68128,
68128, France,
French-German France,
Research Institute (e-mail: Philippe.Wernert@isl.eu).
of Saint-Louis (ISL), Saint-Louis, 68128, France,
(e-mail: Philippe.Wernert@isl.eu).
(e-mail: Philippe.Wernert@isl.eu).
Abstract:
Abstract: This article presents a
This article presents a historical
historical review
review of of the
the most
most well-known
well-known academic academic or or industrial
industrial
Abstract:
developments
developments
Abstract: This
This inarticle
in the
the field
article presents
field of
presents a
a historical
of smart
smart munition
munition
historical review
review of
of the
since
since themost
the
the last well-known
last
most forty years,academic
forty years,
well-known focusingor
focusing
academic industrial
ormostly
mostly
industrial on
on
developments
large
large caliber
caliber
developments in the
artillery
artillery
in the field
systems.
systems.
field of
of smart
The
The
smart munition
accent
accent
munition is
is since
put
put
since the
both
both
the last
on
on
last forty
the
the
forty years,
physical
physical
years, focusing
means
means
focusing of
of mostly
modifying
modifying
mostly on
on
large
or caliber artillery systems. The as accent is put both on the physical means of modifying
or controlling
largecontrolling the
the system
caliber artillery system trajectory
trajectory
systems. The as well
well as
accent as on
on the
is put the
both underlying
underlying
on the physical Guidance
Guidance &
& Control
means Control (G&C)
(G&C)
of modifying
or controlling
algorithms.
algorithms.
or controlling The
The the system
focus
thefocus
system is
is thentrajectory
then turned
turned as
trajectory as
to well
some
to well asof
someasofon on
the the
thethe keyunderlying
past,
keyunderlying current
past, current Guidance
and &
future
and future
Guidance Control
developments
developments
& Control (G&C)
(G&C)
algorithms.
at the
at the French-German
algorithms. The
French-German focus is
The focus isResearch then
Research turned
then turned to some
Institute
Institute
to some of of
of of the key
Saint-Louis
Saint-Louis
the key past,past,
(ISL)
(ISL) current
in this
in this
current and
and future
field.
field.
futureIt
It isdevelopments
is highlighted
highlighted
developments
at
thatthe
that French-German
a synergy between Research
between flight Institute
dynamics of
of Saint-Louis
considerations and(ISL)
and advancedin
in this field.
flight It
It is
control is highlighted
algorithms
at
that
is
theaa synergy
synergy
French-German
mandatory between
to overcome
flight dynamics
Research
flight dynamics
Institute
practical
considerations
Saint-Louis
considerations
performance and
difficulties
advanced
(ISL)
advanced
such as
flight
thisflight
flight
control
field.control
stability,
algorithms
highlighted
algorithms
on-target
is mandatory
that a synergytobetween overcome practical
flight dynamics performance
considerationsdifficulties such as flight
and advanced flight stability, on-target
control algorithms
is mandatory
precision
precision
is mandatory or to
range
or range overcome
augmentation.
augmentation.
to overcome practical performance difficulties such as flight
practical performance difficulties such as flight stability, on-target stability, on-target
precision
precision or
or range
range augmentation.
augmentation.
© 2017, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Keywords: Aerospace
Aerospace engineering,
engineering, Flight control,
Flight control, Dynamic
control, Dynamic
Dynamic systems,systems, Uncertainty.
systems, Uncertainty.
Uncertainty.
Keywords: Aerospace engineering, Flight
Keywords: Aerospace engineering, Flight control, Dynamic systems, Uncertainty.
1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION The
The autopilot
autopilot is
is providing with the control signal to the
1. The
actuatorsautopilot
used istoproviding
providing
modify
with
with
the
the
the control
dynamic control signal
signal of
behavior
to the
to the
the
1. INTRODUCTION actuators
The autopilot usedistoprovidingmodify with the dynamic
the control behavior
signal ofto the
Flight dynamics and control is one of the most important actuators
airframe used
actuators dynamics to modify
as
as measured the dynamic
by
by the behavior
the sensors
behaviorin of the
inoforder
Flight dynamics
dynamics and and control
control is is one
one of of the
the most important airframe
most important airframe
dynamics
used to modify
dynamics as
measured
the dynamic
measured by the
sensors
sensors in
order
the
Flight
disciplines
disciplines
Flight of
of
dynamics aerospace
aerospace
and engineering
engineering
control is one ofwhich
which
the made
made
most possible
possible
important
to
to match
match
airframe the
the reference
reference
dynamics as signals
signals
measured given
given by by
by
the the
the in order
guidance
guidance
sensors law.
law.
order
disciplines
some of the ofmost
aerospace
advanced engineering
technological which made possible
milestones in hu- to match
match the the reference
reference signals
signals given
given by by the
the guidance law.
some of
some of the
disciplines theofmost
most advanced
aerospace
advanced technological
engineering
technological whichmilestones
made possible
milestones in hu- to
in hu- Major
Major low-cost
low-cost related related constraints
constraints involved involved in
guidance
in the
law.
the design
design
man
man
some history.
history.
of the Its
Its
most applications
applications
advanced range
range
technological from
from civilian
civilian
milestones airliners
airliners
in hu- Major
of a low-cost
FCS include related
extremeconstraints
launch involved
accelerations, in the design
complex
man
to history.
highly Its applications
maneuverable combat range from and
aircraft civilian
from airliners
guided of
Majora FCS include
low-cost extreme
related launch accelerations,
constraints involved in thecomplex design
to highly
man
to highly maneuverable
history. Its applications
maneuverable combat
combat rangeaircraft
aircraft and
from and from guided of
fromairliners
civilian guided or
or
of aa FCS
uncertain
uncertain
FCS include
airframe
airframe
include extreme
dynamics
dynamics
extreme launch
launch and
and accelerations,
aerodynamics,
aerodynamics,
accelerations, complex
limited
limited
complex
missiles
missiles to spacecraft,
tomaneuverable
spacecraft, to to name
to combat
name justjust
just a few. Each generation
guided or uncertain airframe dynamics and aerodynamics, limited
to highlyto
missiles
of air
air vehiclesspacecraft,
vehicles pushed to thenameboundary aaof
aircraftfew.and
few. Eachfrom
Each
knowledge
generation
generation
and the
bandwidth
or uncertainactuators,
the bandwidth actuators, noisy
noisy sensor
airframe dynamics sensor and measurements
measurements
aerodynamics, and
and com-
com-
limited
of
missiles to pushed
spacecraft, the boundary
name just a of knowledge
few. Each and
generation bandwidth
bandwidth actuators, noisy sensor measurements and com-
putational
putational actuators,
delays.
delays. noisy
These,
These, sensor
among
among measurements
other
other operational
operational andconsid-
consid-
com-
of air vehicles
ability to pushed
‘balance and the boundary
steer’ even of knowledge
further; from and
the the
early
ability
of
ability to ‘balance
to ‘balance
air vehicles pushed andthe
and steer’
steer’ even further;
boundary
even further; from the
of knowledge
from the the putational
early
andearly erations,
erations,
putational delays.
delays. These,
hindered
hindered among
aeronautical
These, other
other operational
amongengineers
aeronautical engineers from
from
operational consid-
developing
developing
consid-
Sperry
Sperry to
ability airplane
airplane
‘balance stabilizer
stabilizer
and steer’ and stability
and even
stability augmentation
augmentation
further; from the earlycon-
con- more erations, hindered
specialized aeronautical engineers from developing
Sperry
cepts toairplane stabilizer
state-of-the-art and
digital stability
fly-by-wire augmentation
control con-
systems more
erations,
more hinderedguided
specialized
specialized guided
guided
weapons
weapons
aeronautical
weapons
such
such
engineers
suchThese
as
as medium
as medium
medium
or
or large
or large
from developinglarge
cepts
Sperry
cepts to state-of-the-art
airplane stabilizer
to state-of-the-art digital
and fly-by-wire
stability control
augmentation systems
digital fly-by-wire control systems caliber con- caliber artillery-launched
artillery-launched
more specialized guided weaponsprojectiles.
projectiles. suchTheseas mediumsystems
systems were
were
or large
(McRuer and Graham, 2004). caliber
(McRuer
cepts to and Graham,
state-of-the-art
(McRuer and Graham, 2004). 2004).
digital fly-by-wire control systems caliber artillery-launched projectiles. These systems were
artillery-launched
traditionally
traditionally launched
launched projectiles.
following
following a
a These
ballistic
ballistic systems
trajectory,
trajectory,werea
a
(McRuer
In the and Graham,
military domain, 2004).
the design of guided missiles was traditionally
separate
separate launched
scientific
scientific field
field following
in
in its
its own
own aa(McCoy,
ballistic
(McCoy, trajectory,
1999;
1999; Carlucci
Carlucci a
In the
In the military
military domain,
domain, the the design
design of of guided
guided missiles
missiles waswas separate scientific field in its own (McCoy, 1999; Carluccia
traditionally launched following ballistic trajectory,
one of the most important driving powers for the evolution and Jacobson, 2013), and are prone to large target dis-
onethe
In
one of the
of the most important
military
most important
domain, the driving
driving powers
designpowers for the
of guided
for was and
evolution
missiles separate
and Jacobson,
scientific
Jacobson, 2013),
fieldand
2013), in its
and are
areown prone
prone to
to large
(McCoy, 1999;
large target
target dis-
Carlucci
dis-
of flight control algorithms and hardware. the
From evolution
the early persions
persions
and Jacobson, due
due to launch
to 2013),
launch and or
or in flight-disturbances.
inare
flight-disturbances.
prone to large target With the
With dis-
the
of
one
of flight
of
flight thecontrol
most
control algorithms
important
algorithms and
driving
and hardware.
powers
hardware. From
for the
From the early
evolution
the early persions due to launch or in flight-disturbances. With the
V-1 and V-2 surface-to-air missiles to the intercontinental advent of
advent
persions ofduetechnology
technology
to launch though
though
or in since the
since the last
flight-disturbances. last forty
forty
With years,
years,
the
V-1
of
V-1 and
flight
and V-2
control
V-2 surface-to-air
algorithms
surface-to-air missiles
and
missiles to
hardware.
to the
the intercontinental
From the early
intercontinental advent of technology though since the last forty years,
ballistic missiles and from the first air-to-air Sidewinder development
development
advent of of
of guided
guided
technology artillery
artillery
though ammunition
ammunition
since the last was
was at
at
forty hand.
hand.
years,
ballistic
V-1 and V-2
ballistic missiles and from
surface-to-air
missiles and from missiles
the firsttoair-to-air Sidewinder development of guided artillery ammunition was at hand.
the intercontinental
missiles
missiles
ballistic to
to the
the
missiles latest
latest
and cruise
cruise
from the
the first
missiles
missiles
first air-to-air Sidewinder
(Blakelock,
(Blakelock,
air-to-air 1991; development
1991; Artillery
Sidewinder of guided artillery ammunition was at hand.
missiles
Siouris, to thethe
2004), latest cruise ofmissiles
mastering the (Blakelock,
basic building 1991;
blocks Artillery launched
launched projectiles
projectiles fallfall into
into twotwo main
main categories:
categories:
Siouris,
missiles 2004),
to the the mastering
latest cruise of the
missiles basic building
(Blakelock, blocks
1991; Artillery
fin-stabilized
fin-stabilized
Artillery launched
launchedor
or projectiles
spin-stabilized,
spin-stabilized,
projectiles fall
fall into
depending
depending
into two
two main
on
on
main categories:
the
the means
means
Siouris,
of
of
Siouris,
2004),
aa flight
flight
the
control
control
2004), the
mastering
system
system
mastering
of
(FCS)
(FCS)
of
the
the is
is
basic
the
the
basic
building
key
key to
to
building
blocks
success
success
blocks fin-stabilized
of achieving or spin-stabilized,
(passive) airframe dependingThe
stability. on categories:
the means
former re-
of a flight
(Jackson, control
2010). system
These (FCS)
blocks are is the
the key to
airframe success
flight of achieving
fin-stabilized (passive)
or airframe
spin-stabilized, stability.
depending The
on former
the meansre-
(Jackson,
of a flight 2010).
control These
system blocks
(FCS) are is the
the airframe
key to flight
success of achieving
sembles
sembles
of achieving to (passive)
missiles
to missiles
(passive) in airframe
which
in which
airframe stability.
relatively
relatively
stability. large
largeThe
The former
former re-
aerodynamic
aerodynamic re-
(Jackson,
dynamics, 2010).
actuators, These blocks
sensors are
(i.e. the
Inertial airframe
Measurementflight
dynamics, 2010).
(Jackson,
dynamics, actuators,
actuators, These sensors
blocks
sensors (i.e.areInertial
(i.e. Inertial Measurement
the airframe
Measurementflight sembles
surfaces
sembles ensure
surfaces to
to missiles
ensure aa stable
missiles in
in which
stable flight relatively
flight
which whereas
whereas the
relatively thelarge
latter
latter
large aerodynamic
needs
needs only
aerodynamiconly
Unit IMU) and finally the autopilot as shown in Fig. 1. surfaces ensure aa stable flight
Unit IMU)
Unit IMU) actuators,
dynamics, and finally
and finally sensors
the autopilot
the autopilot as shown
(i.e. Inertial
as shown in Fig.
in Fig. 1.
Measurement 1. to
to be rapidly
to be
be rapidly
surfaces ensurespun
rapidly spun
spun
to
to flight whereas
achieve
to achieve
stable achieve
the
the
the same
whereas same
same
the latter
latter needs
theeffect.
effect.
effect. needs only
only
Unit IMU) and finally the autopilot as shown in Fig. 1. to bethe rapidly spun to case, achieve the same effect.
For fin-stabilized one of the
For the fin-stabilized case, one of the first fielded systems first fielded systems
For
was
was the
the
the fin-stabilized
US
US 155mm M712 case,
case, one of
of the
Copperhead the first fielded
fielded systems
laser-guided shell
For
was the
developed USin155mm
the fin-stabilized
155mm
the 70’s
M712
M712 Copperhead
one
Copperhead
(Morrison and
firstlaser-guided
laser-guided
Amberntson,
shell
systems
shell
1977;
developed
was the USin155mm the 70’sM712 (Morrison
Copperhead and Amberntson,
laser-guided 1977;shell
developed
Morrison,
developed 1980).
Morrison, in
1980).the
in theIts 70’s
Its (Morrison
successor,
successor,
70’s (Morrison the
the and and
M982 Amberntson,
Excalibur
Excalibur is
M982Amberntson, 1977;
is GPS-
GPS-
1977;
Morrison,
guided
guided
Morrison, with
with1980). Its
Its successor,
increased
increased
1980). accuracy
accuracy
successor, the
the and M982
M982range
and Excalibur
range is
is GPS-
(Fowler
(Fowler
Excalibur and
and
GPS-
guided
Rogers,
Rogers,
guided with
2015).
2015).
with increased
Other
Other
increased accuracy
concepts
concepts
accuracy and
include
include
and range
the
the
range (Fowler
Russian
Russian
(Fowler and
30F39
30F39
and
Rogers,
Krasnopol 2015).(Grau,Other concepts
2005), the include
Italo-German the RussianVULCANO30F39
Krasnopol
Rogers, 2015). (Grau,Other 2005), the include
concepts Italo-German the RussianVULCANO30F39
Krasnopol
and
and finally
finally the
Krasnopol (Grau,
the
(Grau,Chinese
Chinese 2005),
2005), the
the Italo-German
NORINCO
NORINCO GP1
GP1 &
Italo-German & GP6. VULCANO
GP6.
VULCANO
Fig.
Fig. 1.
1. Main
Main blocks
blocks of
of a
a FCS
FCS feedback
feedback loop
loop and finally the Chinese NORINCO GP1 & GP6.
Fig. 1. Main blocks of a FCS feedback loop and finally the Chinese NORINCO GP1 & GP6.
Fig. 1. Main blocks of a FCS feedback loop
Copyright
2405-8963 ©
Copyright © 2017
2017 IFAC
© 2017, 16082
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
IFAC 16082Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review©under
2017 responsibility
IFAC of International Federation of 16082
Automatic Control.
Copyright © 2017 IFAC 16082
10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2127
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Spilios Theodoulis et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15512–15517 15513
Fig. 2. BAE 155mm Silver Bullet guided projectile
In the spin-stabilized case are found systems employ-
ing a so-called course correction fuse (CCF), often aero-
dynamically or mechanically decoupled from the main
spinning projectile body. The French SPACIDO performs
1D range correction and uses a fuse equipped with air
brakes (Brustlein, 2015) whereas the US M1156 Precision
Guidance Kit (PGK) uses four fixed canards and a roll
orientable guidance fuse (Burke and Pergolizzi, 2010). Ad-
vanced concepts for 2D range & drift correction using fully
independent control canards such the IAI TopGun and the
BAE Silver Bullet (see Fig. 2) have also recently appeared.
The benefit of a spin-stabilized smart munition with re-
spect to a fin-stabilized one is twofold. First, thousands of
existing unguided shells may be retrofitted with a low-cost
guidance fuse, hence greatly reducing the cost of develop-
ing a new whole projectile. Second, thanks to the absence
of stabilizing surfaces on spin-stabilized projectiles, as op-
posed to fin-stabilized ones, the drag is reduced and hence
a larger range may be expected. The challenge though
is that it is difficult to integrate all necessary hardware
components in the relatively limited space of a guidance
fuse and also flight dynamics modeling, simulation and
control requires much more effort than for a fin-stabilized
projectile. This is mainly a result of its largely coupled
pitch and yaw dynamics due to the projectile high spin,
and also due to the presence of additional phenomena
proper to spinning bodies such as trajectory drift, Magnus
effects, etc. This state of the art review focuses on canard-
guided spin-stabilized projectiles integrating a course cor-
rection fuse (CCF) even though alternative methods exist
(impulse jets, translating masses, fin deflectors, etc.) 1 .
On the flight dynamics side, the earliest work is found
in the 70’s (Regan and Smith, 1975; Lloyd and Brown,
1979) where some first considerations on aerodynamics,
airframe trim, stability and maneuverability were given
for a MK-41 projectile integrating a CCF. After a twenty
year gap, Costello and Peterson (2000) published the
first full nonlinear 7DoF model of a dual-spin projectile
and investigated its stability properties using aeroballistic
theory. Based on the previous work, Burchett et al. (2002)
went a step further and gave analytic and simple solutions
for the resulting swerve motion of a dual-spin projectile
under the action of lateral pulse jets which can be used
for trajectory prediction. Furthermore, (Ollerenshaw and
Costello, 2008) proved that maximum swerve response for
a spin-stabilized projectile is achieved when the force is
applied near the base of the projectile. These works were
recently extended in (Liu et al., 2015; Chang, 2016).
1 Focus is put mostly on peer-reviewed journals presenting the most
notable results to the authors’ knowledge whereas some important
conference papers are also cited.
16083
A first version of a CCF Linear Parameter-Varying (LPV)
model was obtained by Theodoulis et al. (2011) and was
subsequently used for trajectory stability analysis. This
model was refined in later publications by the same au-
thors as discussed below and (Zhu et al., 2015) also in-
vestigated stability properties of the same concept. Chang
et al. (2014) investigated in more depth the spin properties
of the weapon’s for and aft parts as well as its influencing
factors and Wang et al. (2016) elaborated on the impact
of the guidance fuse on the weapon trajectory.
On the flight control side, Gagnon and Lauzon (2007,
2008) have published the first results concerning CCF’s
and compared them to simpler drag and spin brake con-
cepts. More recent results can be also found in (Gagnon
and Vachon, 2016) where several concepts using various
combinations of fixed and movable canards are compared
in a system simulation context. Full-authority autopilot
design was treated in detail in (Theodoulis et al., 2013,
2015) where the complete design chain was detailed. The
focus was on the one hand put on the clarification of the
flight dynamics, internal couplings and operating envelope
of the CCF pitch and yaw channels, and on the other hand
on investigating both state and output feedback robust
autopilots of least complexity. Worthwhile contributions
on the subject can be additionally found in (Elsaadany
and Wen-jun, 2014; Wang et al., 2015).
The French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis
(ISL) has a long tradition in designing, simulating and
testing (see Fig. 3) both ballistic and guided projectiles
since its creation more than fifty years ago. Its activities
in this field are grouped in four complementary fields:
guidance, navigation & control software and hardware,
exterior ballistics and flight testing, sensors, telemetry
& communications, and finally aerodynamics and mea-
surement techniques. This article focuses naturally on its
contributions mainly on the flight dynamics & control of
these systems; from its early work on ballistic theory and
the numerous types of guided projectiles using various
means of control, to the futuristic, next-generation long
range and high precision weapon systems of tomorrow.
This article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents
some of the earlier developments focusing on flight dynam-
ics and concepts exploring the controllability of projectiles,
Section 3 illustrates current work which proposes more
systematic efforts towards projectile guidance & control
whereas finally Section 4 gives an outline of the next
generation long range projectiles designed in the institute.
Fig. 3. Overview of ISL’s proving ground
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
15514
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Spilios Theodoulis et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15512–15517
2. EARLIER DEVELOPMENTS
2.1 Exterior ballistics
The most fundamental expertise of ISL has traditionally
been ballistics (internal, external or terminal); a science
entrusted with the determination of the trajectory of a
(non-guided gun-launched) projectile. A projectile could
be of any caliber or weight, fin- or spin-stabilized. This
problem is quite challenging since it involves the numerical
integration of 12 nonlinear, coupled, first-order differential
equations driven by the external forces and moments
applied on the projectile. The computational burden grows
rapidly for traditional artillery spin-stabilized ammunition
since their rate of spin is so fast and hence the required
computation step so small, that computers were simply
unable to yield a complete trajectory before the 60’s.
Linearized solutions to this problem were given by the
pioneering work of Molitz and Strobel (1963) whereas the
use of specific non-rolling reference frames in the 70’s per-
mitted the first full 6DoF simulations at ISL, using 7 − 8th
order Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg methods. An intermediate,
faster solution was the so-called modified point mass model
for which ISL made significant contributions (Fleck and
Molitz, 1977). These efforts on projectile flight dynamics
eventually led to simulation tools such as the Fortran-
based BALCO program in the context of NATO STANAG
4618 working group and finally to 6/7 DoF state-of-the-
art MATLAB/Simulink simulation environments contain-
ing everything from flight mechanics, forces & moments
description and environmental data, to actuator & sensor
modeling and up to GNC modules (Wernert et al., 2010).
2.2 Guided projectiles
One ISL projectile concept that used some form of guid-
ance was the ingenious spin-stabilized M2PA (Munition
à Porté et Précision Accrue) concept of Fleck and Berner
(1996) shown in Fig. 4. The lifting wings behind the center
of mass reduce the destabilizing pitching moment and
increase lift, whereas the reciprocating control canards
shift the center of pressure and maintain a rather large
and controllable angle of attack. Using this concept, as well
as later developments with canted lifting surfaces (Berner
et al., 2002), a high lift-to-drag ratio (LDR) reaching up
to 4 was attained. Full 6DoF trajectory simulations were
conducted employing a proportional navigation guidance
law and resultant ranges of around 60km were achieved.
Fig. 4. ISL’s M2PA guided projectile concept
16084
Fig. 5. ISL’s Guided Supersonic Projectile (GSP)
An alternative means of correcting the trajectory of a
Guided Supersonic Projectile (GSP) was investigated at
ISL at the turn of the century (see Fig. 5). The main goal
was to increase the effectiveness of air defense systems
against maneuvering targets such as attack helicopters,
UAV’s or missiles. The projectile trajectory deflection was
achieved using a pair of thrusters located on its nose and
used a particular double impulse strategy (Corriveau et al.,
2011). Aerodynamic optimization, on-board electronics
and proving ground tests contributed also to this work
(Berner et al., 2007; Wey, 2007).
3. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
3.1 Course Correction Fuse (CCF)
The ISL activities on guided projectiles were henceforth
devoted to the flight dynamics, control and simulation of
canard-guided, spin-stabilized 155mm shells. This class of
artillery systems is very specific and at the core of ISL com-
petences. The goal was to transform an initially ballistic,
unguided projectile to a low-cost, highly precise weapon
with a typical circular error probable (CEP) of less than
1m under perfect navigation. This was achieved by the
addition of a course-correction guidance fuse as shown in
Fig. 6. The main challenges are the spin-induced, relatively
complex and coupled flight dynamics, the high levels of
modeling uncertainty, the low inherent maneuverability
due to the small control surfaces and the low cost actuators
and sensors that can be integrated in this class of systems.
The weapon consists of a rapidly spinning aft body and a
roll-decoupled guidance fuse located at its front, equipped
with up to four steering canards. The control problem
is twofold: first a co-axial motor to control the fuse roll
orientation is used and second, canard deflections are
applied to stabilize and track lateral accelerations issued
from guidance laws. The projectile is guided to the target
at a distance of no less than 30km with a high precision.
Fig. 6. ISL’s Course Correction Fuse (CCF) concept
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Spilios Theodoulis et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15512–15517 15515
Fig. 7. Mixed sensitivity autopilot synthesis diagram
A complete nonlinear 7DoF model of the system flight
dynamics was first developed and its equilibrium points
characterized with respect to a suitable selection of flight
parameters such as Mach number, dynamic pressure, roll
rate, Euler and aerodynamic angles. This permitted a
maneuverability analysis of the projectile and the com-
putation of a linearized model (typically a q-LPV model)
for every flight condition (Theodoulis et al., 2011, 2013).
These tools helped also to better assess its inherent stabil-
ity properties along the flight trajectory.
A thorough procedure for the design of a closed loop
autopilot was then established, based on modern robust
control theory and tools. This had never been found in the
literature and was a ‘world premiere’ for ISL; it eventually
led to a complete GNC suite for the performance evalu-
ation of such systems. The autopilots were designed us-
ing two H∞ -based methods: a mixed sensitivity approach
(Theodoulis et al., 2015) and a loop shaping approach
(Sève et al., 2016) for every necessary flight condition
(see Fig. 7). The controllers were also verified for robust
stability with respect to aerodynamic and component un-
certainty using µ-analysis techniques, and then discretized
for Simulink implementation. Full 3D trajectories were
finally simulated using a proportional navigation guidance
law to prove the system’s accuracy in the presence of wind
and uncertain launch conditions (see Fig. 8).
Fig. 8. Mixed sensitivity autopilot synthesis diagram
16085
3.2 Hardware In-the-Loop (HIL)
A major requirement in designing a GNC system is to
augment the designer’s confidence that simulation-proven
algorithms will work in the real system before attempting
free flight tests. Two are the major underlying challenges:
the first is to obtain a precise mathematical model valid
for any operating condition and the second is to verify that
the flight control law will function for the real system as it
does for the mathematical model. Given that flight tests
are expensive and the risk of failure non-negligible, the
objective was to develop a Hardware-In-the-Loop setup
installed in the test section of ISL subsonic wind tunnel.
This setup permits to mimic real flight but in a secure and
manageable environment.
Wind Tunnel
Guidance fins
Projectile
Embedded computer
3-DoF gimbal
Tail fins
Fig. 9. ISL’s ACHILES concept experimental setup
The prototype ACHILES (Automatic Control Hardware-
in-the-Loop Experimental Setup) consists of an 80mm cal-
iber shell, four movable control canards and four fixed
stability fins (see Figs. 9, 10). It is mounted on a gimbaled
support offering the ability of free rotation about its pitch
& yaw axes. The canards are used to track aerodynamic
angle reference commands in real-time. The flight dynam-
ics model was derived from rigid-body mechanics, taking
into account mechanical restrictions imposed on the air-
frame by the support structure. The equilibrium manifold
was validated theoretically and experimentally for given
airspeed and aerodynamic angle values. The nonlinear
model was linearized for these values and its parameters
experimentally estimated. Practical identifiability was also
assessed and a suitable optimal excitation signal was con-
structed to ensure good estimation (Strub et al., 2016).
Fig. 10. ISL’s ACHILES concept experimental setup
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
15516 Spilios Theodoulis et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15512–15517
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017
Fig. 11. ACHILES aerodynamic angle reference tracking
performance for several airspeeds
A gain-scheduling control strategy was employed to pro-
vide with a full envelope nonlinear control law. Several lin-
ear control strategies were tested in an increasing complex-
ity manner, in which the pitch axis was first studied before
actually attempting to tackle the coupled pitch/yaw axis
multivariable controller. The approach that offered the
best results was a multi-objective, mixed-sensitivity H∞
design producing 2DoF fixed order controllers. The feed-
back part was designed for disturbance rejection whereas
the feedforward part for model following. Robust stability
to modeling uncertainty, estimated during the modeling
& identification phase, was again treated using µ-analysis
theory and the autopilot was implemented in discrete time
on the missile on-board computer (Strub et al., 2015). The
experimental results obtained are illustrated in Fig. 11.
4. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
The natural extension of ISL previous works comes in the
form of a patented, spin-stabilized, canard-guided 155mm
long range projectile integrating additional twisted, swept
angle lifting surfaces shown in Fig. 12. Its ambition is to
extend the range of full caliber ammunition beyond 80km
while maintaining pinpoint target accuracy capabilities.
Making use of state-of-the-art, in-house developed numer-
ical simulation codes, wind-tunnel experiments at ISL’s
new trisonic wind tunnel and free flight tests at its proving
ground, the aerodynamics of the new generation of guided
projectiles is being optimized. In the same time, advanced
flight control algorithms and optimal guidance laws are
developed to accurately control its trajectory.
Fig. 12. ISL’s guided long range projectile concept
16086
A visualization of the guided projectile flight sequence,
divided in four distinct phases, is given in Fig. 13. During
the first flight phase, the projectile is spin-stabilized and
follows a ballistic trajectory. Profiting of its clean configu-
ration, drag is kept to a minimum and hence the projectile
is capable of reaching a higher apogee altitude and at
a higher airspeed compared to fin-stabilized concepts. In
the second flight phase, the lifting wings are gradually un-
folded using an appropriate strategy in order to maintain
sufficient airframe stability during the transition.
Making use of an ingenious combination of aerodynamic
and gyroscopic effects, the projectile is able to follow a
gliding trajectory towards the target, without excessive
requirements in terms of control authority. During this
third phase, the projectile’s velocity gradually decreases
while it flies at an optimal but time-dependent aerody-
namic angle-of-attack. The result of this practice is that
its Lift-to-Drag Ratio (LDR) is optimized and its range
hence extended with respect to more traditional solutions.
It must be added here than no base bleed propulsion
system is employed and the range extension is due only to
the clever manipulation of the projectile flight dynamics.
Finally, once the projectile reaches the target area the
fourth phase commences, and the projectile is able to
steer itself towards the target using the roll-decoupled nose
located control canards.
Fig. 13. ISL’s long range projectile flight sequence
REFERENCES
Berner, C., Fleck, V., and Dupuis, A. (2002). Experimental
and computational analysis for a long range spinning
artillery shell with lifting surfaces. In 20th International
Ballistics Symposium. Orlando, FL.
Berner, C., Fleck, V., and Dupuis, A. (2007). Prelimi-
nary design for ISL’s guided supersonic projectile. In
23rd International Symposium on Ballistics. Tarragona,
Spain.
Blakelock, J.H. (1991). Automatic Control of Aircraft and
Missiles. John Wiley & Sons.
Brustlein, C. (2015). Maı̂triser la puissance de feu: Un défi
pour les forces terrestres. Laboratoire de Recherche sur
la Défense, 61.
Burchett, B., Peterson, A., and Costello, M. (2002). Pre-
diction of swerving motion of a dual-spin projectile with
lateral pulse jets in atmospheric flight. Mathematical
and Computer Modelling, 35, 821–834.
Burke, P.J. and Pergolizzi, A. (2010). XM1156 precision
guidance kit (PGK) overview. In 53rd Annual Fuze
Conference. Orlando, FL.
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Spilios Theodoulis et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15512–15517 15517
Carlucci, D.E. and Jacobson, S.S. (2013). Ballistics:
Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition. CRC
Press.
Chang, S. (2016). Dynamic response to canard control and
gravity for a dual-spin projectile. Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, 53(3), 558–566.
Chang, S., Wang, Z., and Tiezheng (2014). Analysis
of spin-rate property for dual-spin-stabilized projectiles
with canards. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 51(3),
958–966.
Corriveau, D., Wey, P., and Berner, C. (2011). Thrusters
pairing guidelines for trajectory corrections of projec-
tiles. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
34(4), 1120–1128.
Costello, M. and Peterson, A. (2000). Linear theory of
a dual-spin projectile in atmospheric flight. Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 23(5), 789–797.
Elsaadany, A. and Wen-jun, Y. (2014). Accuracy improve-
ment capability of advanced projectile based on course
correction fuze concept. The Scientific World Journal.
Fleck, V. and Berner, C. (1996). Increase of range for
an artillery projectile by using the lift force. In 16th
International Ballistics Symposium. San Francisco, CA.
Fleck, V. and Molitz, H. (1977). Contribution to the study
of the influence of nonlinear effects on the trajectory
of spinning shells. In 3rd International Symposium on
Ballistics. Karlsruhe, Germany.
Fowler, L. and Rogers, J. (2015). Airframe performance
optimization of guided projectiles using design of ex-
periments. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 52(6),
1603–1613.
Gagnon, E. and Lauzon, M. (2007). Maneuverability
analysis of the conventional 155 mm gunnery projectile.
In AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference
and Exhibit.
Gagnon, E. and Lauzon, M. (2008). Course correction fuze
concept analysis for in-service 155 mm spin-stabilized
gunnery projectiles. In AIAA Guidance, Navigation and
Control Conference and Exhibit, 1–20.
Gagnon, E. and Vachon, A. (2016). Efficiency analysis of
canards-based course correction fuze for a 155-mm spin-
stabilized projectile. Journal of Aerospace Engineering,
1–10.
Grau, L.W. (2005). The high-precision tulip: Development
and combat employment of the soviet laser-guided mor-
tar round. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 18(4),
717–722.
Jackson, P.B. (2010). Overview of missile flight control
systems. Johns Hopkins APL technical digest, 29, 9–24.
Liu, X., Li, D., and Shen, Q. (2015). Swerving orientation
of spin-stabilized projectile for fixed-cant canard control
input. Mathematical Problems in Engineering.
Lloyd, K.H. and Brown, D.P. (1979). Instability of spin-
ning projectiles during terminal guidance. Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2(1), 65–70.
McCoy, R.L. (1999). Modern Exterior Ballistics: The
Launch and Flight Dynamics of Symmetric Projectiles.
Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
McRuer, D. and Graham, D. (2004). Flight control
century: Triumphs of the systems approach. Journal
of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 27(2), 161–173.
Molitz, H. and Strobel, R. (1963). Äußere Ballistik.
Springer-Verlag.
16087
Morrison, P.H. (1980). A lesson learned about cannon-
launched guided projectiles. Journal of Guidance and
Control, 3(2), 154–157.
Morrison, P.H. and Amberntson, D.S. (1977). Guidance
and control of a cannon-launched guided projectile.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 14(6), 328–334.
Ollerenshaw, D. and Costello, M. (2008). Simplified
projectile swerve solution for general control inputs.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 31(5),
1259–1265.
Regan, F.J. and Smith, J. (1975). Aeroballistics of a ter-
minally corrected spinning projectile (TCSP). Journal
of Spacecraft and Rockets, 12(12), 733–738.
Sève, F., Theodoulis, S., Wernert, P., Zasadzinki, M., and
Boutayeb, M. (2016). Gain-scheduled H∞ loop-shaping
autopilot design for spin-stabilized canard-guided pro-
jectiles. Aerospace Lab: Special issue on design & vali-
dation of aerospace control systems.
Siouris, G.M. (2004). Missile Guidance and Control Sys-
tems. Springer - Verlag.
Strub, G., Dobre, S., Gassmann, V., Theodoulis, S.,
and Basset, M. (2016). Pitch-axis identification for a
guided projectile using a wind-tunnel-based experimen-
tal setup. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics,
21(3), 1357–1365.
Strub, G., Theodoulis, S., Gassmann, V., Dobre, S., and
Basset, M. (2015). Pitch axis control for a guided
projectile in a wind tunnel hardware-in-the-loop setup.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 52(6), 1614–1626.
Theodoulis, S., Gassmann, V., Wernert, P., Dritsas, L.,
Kitsios, I., and Tzes, A. (2013). Guidance and control
design for a class of spin-stabilized fin-controlled pro-
jectiles. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
36(2), 517–531.
Theodoulis, S., Morel, Y., and Wernert, P. (2011). Mod-
elling and stability analysis of the 155 mm spin-
stabilised projectile equipped with steering fins. Inter-
national Journal of Modelling, Identification and Con-
trol, 14(3), 189–204.
Theodoulis, S., Sève, F., and Wernert, P. (2015). Robust
gain-scheduled autopilot design for spin-stabilized pro-
jectiles with a course-correction fuze. Aerospace Science
and Technology, 42, 477–489.
Wang, Y., Song, W., Fang, D., and Guo, Q. (2015).
Guidance and control design for a class of spin-stabilized
projectiles with a two-dimensional trajectory correction
fuze. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering.
Wang, Y., Cheng, J., Yu, J., and Wang, X. (2016). Influ-
ence of yawing force frequency on angular motion and
ballistic characteristics of a dual-spin projectile. Defence
Technology, 12, 124–128.
Wernert, P., Theodoulis, S., and Morel, Y. (2010). Flight
dynamics properties of 155 mm spin-stabilized projec-
tiles analyzed in different body frames. In Atmospheric
Flight Mechanics Conference, 1–17. Toronto, Canada.
Wey, P. (2007). Performance analysis of ISL’s guided
supersonic projectile. In 23rd International Symposium
on Ballistics. Tarragona, Spain.
Zhu, D., Tang, S., Guo, J., and Chen, R. (2015). Flight
stability of a dual-spin projectile with canards. Journal
of Aerospace Engineering, 229(4), 703–716.