electronics
Article
The Remote Control of the Artillery Rocket Set as a Strongly
Nonlinear System Subject to Random Loads
Zbigniew Koruba * and Piotr Szmidt






Citation: Koruba, Z.; Szmidt, P. The
Remote Control of the Artillery
Rocket Set as a Strongly Nonlinear
System Subject to Random Loads.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507. https://
doi.org/10.3390/electronics10131507
Academic Editors: Dumitru Popescu,
Haoping Wang, Severus C. Olteanu
and Ciprian Lupu
Received: 17 May 2021
Accepted: 19 June 2021
Published: 22 June 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10131507
Faculty of Mechatronics and Mechanical Engineering, Kielce University of Technology, Aleja Tysiaclecia
˛ Państwa
Polskiego 7, 25-314 Kielce, Poland; pszmidt@tu.kielce.pl
* Correspondence: ksmzko@tu.kielce.pl
Abstract: On the modern battlefield, fighting capabilities, such as speed, target detection range,
target identification capabilities, and shooting effectiveness, of short-range artillery rocket sets (ARSs)
are constantly being improved. Problems arise when attempting to successfully fire such kits in the
face of disruption from both the cannon and the moving platform on which the cannon is mounted.
Furthermore, the set is a variable mass system since it can fire anywhere from a few to dozens or even
hundreds of missiles in a brief period of time, implying that the ARS is a highly nonlinear system of
variable parameters (non-stationary). This work shows how to control such a system. If the ARS is
placed on a moving basis where there is both a system and measurement noise, the state variables
must be restored, and the ARS data must be filtered. Therefore, in addition to the LQR regulator,
an extended Kalman filter was used. As a consequence of this synthesis, an LQG (linear quadratic
Gaussian) regulator of ARS was obtained, which was used to follow the target along the line of sight.
The key goal of this paper is to develop control algorithms that will increase the performance of ARS
control in elevation and azimuth, as well as the accuracy of achieving and eliminating maneuverable
air targets. Moreover, through the quality criterion adopted, we hope to affect control energy costs
while maintaining control precision. Graphical representations of certain computational simulation
results are provided.
Keywords: control; nonlinear system dynamics; linearization; target tracking; Kalman filter
1. Introduction
The aim of modern artillery rocket sets (ARSs), is to capture low-flying, maneuvering
air targets, not only in all weather conditions but also during the motion of the carrier on
the unevenness of the surface on which such a set is mounted; this is applicable to both
land and water surfaces [1–4].
The ARS described in this paper is a very short-range anti-aircraft system dedicated
to the defense of important military and civilian objects, both fixed and mobile, from air
attacks from up to 5 km. It has an integrated computerized system for detecting, identifying,
and managing targets, which ensures high efficiency with high mobility and low cost of
exploitation [5,6].
The set is equipped with a stabilized optoelectronic day–night head, which can work
independently of the armament in the scope of observation, detection, and target identifi-
cation. This optoelectronic head is not only an element of the guidance system but also a
source of information for the entire system since the data on the detected and observed
objects are exchanged throughout the chain of command. Each set is also equipped with a
laser radiation warning system.
A double 23 mm caliber gun with a theoretical rate of 2000 shots per minute and
an effective range of fire of up to 3 km, as well as two anti-aircraft GROM/PIORUN
missiles with a range of 5.5 km, are included in the set’s armament. The set is capable of
destroying not only planes and combat helicopters but also unmanned aerial vehicles and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 2 of 16

even maneuvering missiles, thanks to its increased tracking speed and precision. Lightly
armored targets, on both land and water surfaces, can also be destroyed. A single battery
can defend a 350-square kilometer area from an aerial attack coming from any direction.
This paper analyses the issue of the selection of such a stabilization and control system
with this type of set (Figure 1) so that the search and tracking process can reliably take place
in the disadvantageous conditions mentioned before. This process is required to develop a
suitable mathematical model of the set in question because, in the systems of automatic
self-propelled rocket control, PD or PID controllers are most commonly used. This control
fails in cases in which a change in the structure or parameters of the set occurs (e.g., during
ammunition storage firing or damage in combat conditions) [7–9]. Inevitably, during the
operation of the set, there are both process and measurement noises, so it is necessary to
restore state variables and filter the measurement data. Therefore, an extended Kalman
filter was used to control the set, along with a modified LQG (linear quadratic Gaussian)
regulator in which Jacobian was used instead of a state matrix [10,11]. It is worth noting
that new, robust control methods for nonlinear systems are currently being developed and
studied. Examples of works in this field include [12–14]. However, these require learning
to be performed and are mostly quite computationally demanding. In the case of the ARS,
there is a need to simultaneously filter the signals and develop real-time controls with
sampling rates of 0.001 s or, often, even more frequent rates.

Figure 1. A general view of the artillery rocket set “Wróbel 2” mounted on the ship [15].

Although scientific research is currently being conducted into the LQR regulator
in defense applications [16], it should be emphasized that, in the available literature,
excluding the works of the authors of this article, the authors did not find a description of
the nonlinear mathematical model or a study on a remote-controlled artillery rocket set,
especially with LQR or LQG control. Therefore, in their opinion, there is a need to conduct
a theoretical simulation and experimental research into such sets, which are now becoming
increasingly common short-range anti-aircraft weapons on the modern battlefield. It is also
important to consider the real conditions affecting the set as comprehensively as possible.
The development of an LQG controller for the aforementioned set operating under random
disturbances is a new topic discussed in the scientific literature.
Section 2 presents a mathematical model of the dynamics of a remotely controlled ar-
tillery rocket set under the influence of random disturbances and linearized using Jacobians.
Section 3 contains an algorithm for controlling the set using a modified LQG controller.
The kinematic equations of motion of the target observation line are provided, from which
the software trajectory (set) of the ARS motion is determined.
Selected results of simulation studies are provided in graphical form in Section 4. A
comparative analysis of the set control using PID, LQR, and LQG regulators was performed
under the conditions of the occurrence of interference from the base on which the set is
placed (ARS) and during a short series of shots.
A summary of the test results and conclusions are presented in the last Section 5.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 3 of 16

2. Mathematical Model of the Set Movement

A 3D model was designed to obtain physical parameters such as mass and moments
of inertia before specifying the set’s equations of motion. Figure 2 shows the model, along
with a list of the most significant elements.

Figure 2. General view of 3D model.

A mechanical model is depicted in Figure 3. The generalized moment Q1 is assumed

to rotate the body (1) by an azimuth angle θ 1 around the axis z1 . The generalized moment
Q2 rotates the body (2) by the elevation angle θ 2 around the axis y2 that travels with the
body (1).

Figure 3. ARS mechanical model schematic diagram. Designations in Figure 3: θ 1 , azimuth angle; θ 2 ,
elevation angle; Qi , generalized moment acting on i-th element; I1 , constant mass moment of inertia
of body (1) in relation to Z1 axis; Is (n), variable mass moment of inertia of body (1) in relation to
Z1 axis depending on the amount of cartridges n in boxes; I2 , constant mass moment of inertia of
body (2) in relation to y2 axis; Ia (θ 2 ), variable mass moment of inertia of body (2) in relation to z1
axis depending on elevation angle θ 2 ; m, mass of body (2); g, gravitational acceleration; r, distance
between the center of gravity of body (2) and y2 rotation axis; γ, angular displacement of the center
of gravity of body (2) with regard to the axis of a gun barrel.

The nonlinear state equations describing the ARS dynamics model are based on those
presented in paper [9]. Some changes have been adopted in this paper: a viscotic friction
model has been assumed, and kinematic disturbances (from the ARS base movement) will
be part of the disturbances of generalized torques Q1 and Q2 .

dx1
= x 2 = g1 (1)
dt
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 4 of 16

g2
z }|
{
dx2 − 3ax32 + 2bx3 + c x2 x4 − η1 x2 Q1
= + (2)
dt I1 + Ia + Is I1 + Ia + Is
dx3
= x 4 = g3 (3)
dt
g4
z }| {
0.5 ax32 + 2bx3 + c x22 − mgr cos( x3 + γ) − η2 x4


dx4 Q
= + 2 (4)
dt I2 I2
Equations (1)–(4) have been divided into two parts to facilitate the presentation
of the model in linearized form (5). The first part gi = gi (xARS ), i = 1, 2, 3, 4 is re-
lated to the dynamics of the system. The second part, which is present in (2) and
(4), is related to the control of the system. The system state vector is assumed to be
 T
xARS (t) = x1 (t) x2 (t) x3 (t) x4 (t) . The initial conditions x1 (0), x2 (0), x3 (0), x4 (0)
are known (estimated) after calibration of the system before the firing.
With further consideration, the time variable for state variables and matrices is omit-
ted. The linearized time-variant ARS motion equations are represented in the following
form [9,11]:  .
∆xARS = JARS ∆xARS + BARS uARS + wARS
(5)
∆zARS = HARS ∆xARS + vARS
where:
x1∗
   
x1
∗ x2 x2∗
∆xARS = xARS − xARS
   
= −
x3∗

 x3   
x4 x4∗
 
0 0
1
 ∗ 0  
Q1

∗ I1 + Ia (xARS )+ Is
BARS (xARS ) = ; uARS =
 
 0 0  Q2
1
0 I2
.
while: x1 = θ1 is the ARS azimuth angle. x2 = θ 1 is the ARS azimuth angle speed.
.
x3 = θ2 is the ARS elevation angle. x4 = θ 2 is the ARS elevation angle speed. ∆xARS is the
 T
vector of state variables’ deviation from desired values. xARS = x1 x 2 x3 x4 is
∗ = x1∗ x2∗ x3∗ x4∗ is the vector of

the vector of real variables of the ARS state. xARS
ARS state variables at work point, i.e., the vector of the desired values of state variables.
HARS = I4x4 is the measurement (output) matrix. ∆zARS is the output vector of deviation
from the desired values. wARS = [w1 , w2 , w3 , w4 ]T is the ARS process noise (white
Gaussian). vARS is the ARS measurement noise (white Gaussian). Qi = Mci + Mbi + Msi ,
Mci is the control moment. Mbi is the base movement disturbance moment. Msi is the
.
shooting disturbance moment. Ti = ηi θ i is the friction moment. ηi are the coefficients of
moments of friction forces acting in the ARS (η1 is the azimuth and η2 is the elevation).
Ia = ax33 + bx32 + cx3 + d; Is = pn + q; a, b, c, d, p, q, n are the parameters of the set described
in detail in the paper [8]. It should be emphasized that the Taylor series method was used
to linearize state Equations (1)–(4), and this method requires a Jacobian calculation.
The matrix JARS (in Equation (5)) is a Jacobian of the following general form:
     
∂g1  ∂g1  ∂g1  ∂g1 
 ∂x1 xARS∗ ∂x2 x∗ ∂x3 x∗ ∂x4 x∗
   
 ∂g2   ARS  ARS  ARS 
 ∂g 2  ∂g 2  ∂g2  

 ∂x1 x∗
 ∂x2 x∗
 ∂x3 x∗
 ∂x4 x∗ 
JARS (xARS ) =  ∂g3 
 ARS
∂g3 
 ARS
∂g3 
 ARS
∂g3 
 ARS 
 (6)
 ∂x1  ∗ ∂x 
2 x ∗ ∂x 
3 x ∗ ∂x 
4 x ∗

x
 ∂g4  ARS ∂g4  ARS ∂g4  ARS ∂g4  ARS 
 
∂x1  ∗
xARS ∂x2  ∗ xARS∂x3  ∗ ∂x4  ∗
xARS xARS
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 5 of 16

The full form of Ia and Is was substituted before calculating the derivatives, and the
derivatives are:
    
∂g1  ∂g1  ∂g1  ∂g1  ∂g2 
∂x1 x∗
 = 0; ∂x2 x∗
 = 1; ∂x3 x∗
 = 0; ∂x4 x∗
 = 0; ∂x1 x∗ = 0;
ARS ARS ARS ARS ARS
2
(3a(x3 ) +2bx3 +c) x4 −η1

∂g2 
∂x2 x∗ =− hARS ;
ARS
x2 (3a( x3 ) +2bx3 +c)[ x4 (3a( x3 )2 +2bx3 +c)+η1 ]
2

∂g2  6ax3 +2b
∂x3 x∗
 = − hARS x 2 x 4 + hARS 2
;
 ARS 2   
∂g2 
∂x4 x∗
+2bx3 +c
= 3a(x3 )hARS ∂g  ∂g 
x2 ; ∂x3  ∗ = 0; ∂x3  ∗ = 0; ∂x3  ∗ = 0;
1 x 2 x
∂g 
3 x
ARS  ARS  ARS ARS
3a( x3 )2 +2bx3 +c

∂g3  ∂g4  ∂g4 
∂x4 x∗
 = 1; ∂x1 x∗ = 0; ∂x2 x∗
 = − I2 x 2 ;
 ARS 2
ARS ARS 
∂g4 
∂x  ∗
3
= − a(x3I)2 +b ( x2 )2 + mgr I2 sin( x3 + γ ); ∂x  ∗
4
∂g4 
= − ηI22 ;
xARS xARS

where:
hARS = I1 + np + q + a( x3 )3 + b( x3 )2 + cx3 + d

3. ARS Control Algorithm with Modified LQG Controller

Control law uARS for the ARS will be defined by means of linear quadratic control
method [17–19], with the goal function IARS in the form (7). The first part of the sum under
the integral of the goal function relates to control accuracy. The second part relates to
optimizing the energy required to control. Thus, adequate control accuracy while reducing
the power required can be obtained. This is also important in order to ensure that the
controller does not force the drives, i.e., hydraulic or electric motors, to operate at saturation
for an extended period of time. The goal function is written for a continuous-time system
with stochastic noises. However, for a discretized system discussed later in this paper,
these criteria will be equivalent [20]. Moreover, there is no third term connected with state
value at the terminal time in (7) because it is much more important to achieve accuracy
during the entire control.
 
Ztt  
IARS (∆xARS , uARS ) = E ∆xTARS QARS ∆xARS + uTARS RARS uARS dt (7)
0

where: tt is the terminal time. E[·] is the expected value. QARS and RARS are the weight
matrices for state variables deviation and control, respectively.
We can present this law using the formula
∗
uARS = −KARS ·(xARS − xARS ) (8)
∗ . . 
= x1∗ x2∗ x3∗ x4∗ = σ σ ε ε
  
where: KARS is the ARS control gain matrix. xARS
are the preset (desired) variables that determine the location of the line of sight (LOS). They
are obtained from the following equations [14]:
 dR
 dt = Vc [cos χc cos σ cos(ε − γc ) + sin χc sin σ ] = f 1
 LOS


dε Vc cos χc sin σ sin(ε−γc )
 dt = − R LOS cos σ = f2 (9)
Vc [cos χc sin σ cos(ε−γc )−sin χc cos σ]

dσ
dt = −


R LOS
= f3

where: ε, σ are the pitch and yaw angles of the line of sight, respectively. RLOS is the
distance between the ARS and aerial target. Vc are the velocities of the target. χc , γc are the
pitch and yaw angles of the target velocity vector, respectively (Figure 4).
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 6 of 16

Figure 4. General view of the LOS position defined by angles ε and σ in the earth’s coordinate system.

Gain matrix KARS occurring in Equation (8) is derived from the following relationship:
−1
Kars = RARS ·BTARS ·PARS (10)

Matrix PARS is a solution to the Riccati algebraic equation

−1
JTARS PARS + PARS JARS − PARS BARS RARS BTARS PARS + QARS = 0 (11)

The weight matrices RARS and QARS , occurring in Equations (10) and (11), are selected
as diagonal matrices and fine-tuned experimentally while the search is starting with values
equal to [17]:
1 1
qii = ,r = (12)
2ximax jj 2u jmax
where: ximax is the maximum scope of changes of i-th value of the state variable (i = 1, 2, 3,
4). u jmax is the maximum scope of changes of j-th control variable value (j = 1, 2).
In the case of ARS interference in the form of process noise and measurement noise
(disturbances), we will use the extended discrete Kalman filter. Therefore, the system (5)
was subjected to discretization and written in the form of the difference Equations (13) and
(14). Moreover, the system is now written in terms of the output variables xARS and zARS
rather than the increments ∆xARS and ∆zARS .

xARS k = JARS k−1 xARS k −1 + BARS k−1 uLQG

ARS k −1 + wARS k −1 (13)

zARS k = HARS k xARS k + vARS k (14)

where: k = 1, 2, 3, . . . is the discrete-time index and initial values, where k–1 = 0 are estimated
from the ARS calibration. zARS k is the vector containing the measurement of the output
of state variables ARS. uLQG ARS k −1 are the previous control values. HARS k = HARS is the
measurement matrix. wARS k−1 is the discrete process noise vector (white Gaussian) of zero
expected value and known covariance matrix QFK ARS . vARS k is the discrete measurement
noise vector (white Gaussian) of zero expected value and known covariance (independent
of wARS k−1 ), JARS k−1 is the discrete ARS transition matrix (15) and BARS k−1 is the discrete
input matrix (16) given by [18,21]:
^
 
JARS (xARS k−1/k−1 )∆t ^
JARS k−1 = e ≈ I + JARS xARS k−1/k−1 ∆t (15)

     
−1 ^ ^ ^
BARS k−1 = JARS xk−1/k−1 (JARS k−1 − I) BARS xARS k−1/k−1 ≈ BARS xARS k−1/k−1 ∆t (16)
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 7 of 16

where: ∆t is the discretization time step. For the additional numerical simulation, an
approximation of the above matrices was used because, for the selected small ∆t, the
accuracy is highly satisfactory and the calculations are much faster, as JARS k−1 and BARS k−1
^
are updated in every discrete time instance. Vector xARS k−1/k−1 is the most recent ARS
state estimate known from the Kalman filter.
The predicted ARS state at time instant k on the basis of the estimate of state and
control from the previous time instant [10,22] is governed by:

^ ^
xARS k/k−1 = JARS k−1 xARS k−1/k−1 + BARS k−1 uLQG
ARS k−1 (17)

FK FK T FK
PARS k/k −1 = JARS k −1 PARS k −1/k −1 JARS k −1 + QARS (18)
^ ^
where: xARS k−1/k−1 is the previous ARS state estimate. xARS k/k−1 is the assessment
of ARS variables a priori (before measurement). PARS FK
k −1/k −1 is the previous covariance
FK
matrix of predictive error. PARS k/k−1 is the covariance matrix of predictive error before the
h i
FK
measurement for ARS. QARS = E wARS k−1 wTARS k−1 is the covariance matrix of process
noise for the ARS.
An update (i.e., correction) to the state estimate and covariance error matrix based on
input measurement at present:
  −1
FK FK T FK T FK
KARS k = PARS k/k −1 HARS H ARS PARS k/k −1 H ARS + R ARS (19)
 
^ ^ FK ^
xARS k/k = xARS k/k−1 + KARS k zARS k − HARS xARS k/k−1 (20)
 
FK FK FK FK
PARS k/k = I − K ARS k ARS PARS k/k −1
H (21)
 
FK FK T
where: KARS k is the Kalman filter gain matrix for the ARS. RARS = E vARS k −1 vARS k −1
^
is the covariance matrix of measurement noise for the ARS. xARS k/k is the current ARS
state estimate (a posteriori). PFK
ARS k/k is the covariance matrix of filtration error for the ARS.
As a result of the control synthesis, we obtain an LQG regulator in the form of
 
LQG ^ ∗
uARS k = −KARS k · xARS k/k − xARS k/k (22)

In the case of random interactions on the target tracking system, a Jacobian should
be created for the LOS movement model, as described by Equation (9). It will be as
follows [10,17]:
∂ f1 ∂ f1 ∂ f1
 
∂RLOS ∂ε ∂σ
 ∂ f2 ∂ f2 ∂ f2 
JLOS (xLOS ) = 
 ∂RLOS ∂ε ∂σ

 (23)
∂ f3 ∂ f3 ∂ f3
∂RLOS ∂ε ∂σ

where:
∂ f1 ∂ f1
∂RLOS = 0; ∂ε = −Vc cos χc cos σ sin( ε − γc );
∂ f1
∂σ = Vc [sin χc cos σ − cos χc sin σcos ( ε − γc )];
∂ f2 Vc cos χc sin σ sin(ε−γc ) ∂ f 2 V cos χc sin σ cos(ε−γc )
∂R LOS = R LOS 2 cosσ
; ∂ε = − c R LOS cos σ ;
∂ f2 Vc cos χc sin(ε−γc )
∂σ = − R LOS (cos σ )2 ;
∂ f3 cos χc cos(γc −ε) sin σ −cos σ sin χc
∂R LOS = Vc R LOS 2
;
∂ f3 Vc cos χc sin σ sin(ε−γc )
∂ε = R LOS ;
∂ f3 Vc (cos χc cos σ cos(γc −ε)+sin χc sin σ )
∂σ = − R LOS .
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 8 of 16

The formulas for the discrete-time system of LOS and the extended Kalman filter will
then be written as:
xLOS k = JLOS k−1 xLOS k−1 + wLOS k−1 (24)
zLOS k = HLOS xLOS k + vLOS k (25)
^ ^
xLOS k/k−1 = JLOS k−1 xLOS k−1/k−1 (26)
FK FK T FK
PLOS k/k −1 = JLOS k −1 PLOS k −1 J LOS k −1 + Q LOS (27)
k
  −1
FK FK T FK T FK
KLOS k = P H
LOS k/k−1 LOS H P H
LOS LOS k −1 LOS + R LOS (28)
k
 
^ ^ FK ^
xLOS k/k = xLOS k/k−1 + KARS k zLOS k − HLOS xLOS k/k−1 (29)
 
FK FK FK FK
PLOS k/k = I − KLOS k LOS PLOS k/k −1
H (30)
^
where: xLOS k is the LOS output variable vector. xLOS k−1/k−1 is the previous LOS state
^
estimation. xLOS k/k−1 is the assessment
 of the
 LOS state variables a priori (before mea-
^
surement). JLOS k−1 = I + JLOS xLOS k−1/k−1 ∆t is the LOS state matrix in discrete form.
FK
PLOS k −1/k −1 is the previous covariance matrix of predictive error for LOS. zLOS k is the cur-
rent measurements from the scan-track head at time k. PLOS FK
k/k −1 is the covariance matrix
^
of predictive error after measurement for LOS. xLOS k/k is the current
h LOS state estimate
i (a
posteriori), wLOS k = [w R LOS k , wε LOS k , wσ LOS ]T , QLOS
FK T
= E wLOS k−1 wLOS k −1 is the
 
FK T
covariance matrix of process noise for LOS. RLOS = E vLOS k−1 vLOS k−1 is the covariance
matrix of measurement noise for LOS. wLOS k , vLOS k are the process and measurement
noises (white Gaussian), i.e., inaccuracy of the assumed flight path of the aggressor and
scan-track head measurement errors. The angular positions of LOS are determined using a
passive gyroscopic target coordinator (scan-track head). Laser is used to measuring the
distance of the target.
Taking into account the Kalman filtering of the target sight lines, the LQG regulator
for control of the artillery rocket set in terms of random interferences influence will be as
follows [9,11,17]:

^∗
 
LQG ^
uARS k = −KARS k · xARS k/k − xARS k/k
 iT  (31)
^
h
.̂ .̂
= −KARS k · xARS k/k − σ̂ARS k/k σARS k/k ε̂ ARS k/k εARS k/k

.̂ .̂
where σARS k/k and εARS k/k can be approximated using the finite difference method.
Therefore, the optimal control moments that we will use to control the ARS while
tracking and shooting to the maneuvering air target will take the form of

Mc1 = uLQG
ARS k (1) (32a)

Mc2 = uLQG
ARS k (2) (32b)
Moments (32a) and (32b) are entered at the input of nonlinear system (1)–(4) and
include the following limitations:

| Mc1 | ≤ Mc1max ; | Mc2 | ≤ Mc2max (33)

Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 9 of 16

where: Mc1max is the maximum allowable control moment in azimuth and Mc2max is the
maximum allowable control moment in elevation. It models the saturation of the ARS’s
driving torques.
The formulation and application of the LQR and LQG regulators significantly improve
the stability of a remotely controlled artillery rocket set when firing at a maneuvering
air target, particularly relative to PID-type controllers. This will be presented in the
next section.

4. Numerical Example and Results

Consider a hypothetical artillery rocket set that detects and tracks a maneuvering
low-flying target. The basic parameters of the considered set are taken from [8]. Numerical
simulations were performed for nonlinear model (1)–(4) in a MATLAB environment with
integration step ∆t = 0.001 s [23,24]. The duration of the process is tt = 10 s. Given
that the initial conditions for the system under consideration are very important, taking
into account [25], the following initial conditions for the ARS state variables and their
  ^  
estimations were supposed: xARS 0 = 0 1.5 0 2.5 , xARS 0 = 0 0 0 0 . The
weight matrices for optimal controls LQR are:
 
40000 0 0 0
 0 0.1 0 0 
QARS =  ;
 0 0 40000 0 
0 0 0 0.1
0.0001 0
RARS = .
0 0.0001

The selection of the matrices QARS and RARS was made by using the knowledge and
importance of controlled state variables and then fine-tuned.
The effectiveness of the modified LQR and LQG regulators has been examined by
comparing the optimum settings of the PID controller described in paper [26]. These
parameters were optimized using the Nelder–Mead algorithm without constraints. The
criterion function was integral of absolute error (IAE), where the decision variables were
PID gains.
It was considered that the ARS state variables measurement matrix is as follows:
 
1 0 0 0
 0 1 0 0 
HARS =   0 0 1 0 ,


0 0 0 1

thus, all state variables are measured: angular positions with absolute encoders and angular
velocity with an angular Hall effect velocity sensor.
FK
The covariance matrix of the ARS process noise is QARS = α2proc HARS HTARS , where
α proc = 0.1 is the amplitude of process noise. The covariance matrix of the ARS mea-
FK = α2 H T
surement noise is RARS mes ARS HARS , where αmes = 0.1 is the measurement noise
amplitude, which is mainly related to the quantization noise and the noise introduced by
the angular speed calculation. The initial covariance matrix of error of estimation of the
FK
ARS state variables is PARS = QARS . On the other hand, air targets data have the following
values: Location of the target relative to the ARS when detected by the observing-tracking
head is xc0 = 1000 m, yc0 = 1000 m, and zc0 = 500 m. The speed of the q moving target is
Vc = 100 m/s = const. The target observation initial conditions, RLOS0 = 2 + y2 + z2 ,
xc0 c0 c0
y zc0 rad
ε 0 = arctg xc0
c0
, σ0 = arcsin RLOS0 , γc0 = 0; χc0 = 0, and ωc0 = 0.75 s are the angular veloc-
ity of the target maneuver.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 10 of 16

It has been assumed that the angles of a target flight change according to the law (the
target is maneuverable):
γc = ωc0 t; χc = ωc0 t.
Taking into consideration the fact that the distance R LOS is measured with a laser
distance meter, it is assumed that the target observation system measurement matrix has
the form of:  
1 0 0
HLOS =  0 1 0 
0 0 1
The initial conditions for the individual state vectors are as follows:
 T
xLOS 0 = RLOS 0 ε 0 σ0
^  T
xLOS 0 = 0.8RLOS 0 0.9ε0 0.9σ0
^∗  T
xARS 0 = 0 0 0 0

FK
The gain matrix of the LOS process noise is QLOS = α2proc HLOS HTLOS . The covariance
matrix of the LOS measurement noise is RLOS FK = α2 H T
proc LOS HLOS . The initial covariance
FK
matrix of LOS state variables estimation error is PLOS = QLOS . The measurement noise is
related to the principle of operation of the optoelectronic scan-track head. Moreover, the
long-range laser distance measurement is subject to a certain error.
Interferences were introduced in the form of three shots simulated as rectangular
pulses in the form of:

Ms1 = Π(tz11 , tz12 ) M01 + Π(tz21 , tz22 ) M01 + Π(tz31 , tz32 ) M01 ,
Ms2 = Π(tz11 , tz12 ) M02 + Π(tz21 , tz22 ) M02 + Π(tz31 , tz32 ) M02 ;

where:

tz11 = 3.00 s, tz12 = 3.02 s, tz21 = 3.22 s, tz22 = 3.24 s, tz31 = 3.44 s, tz32 = 3.46 s

are the moments of firing individual shots. M01 = 1000 [Nm], M02 = 12000 [Nm] are the
moments of forces acting from the shot in azimuth and elevation, respectively. Π(. . .) is
the rectangular stroke function in the time interval [tzi1 ; tzi2 ], i = 1, 2, 3.
It was assumed that the base on which the set is mounted is affected by both azimuth
and elevation in the form of the following moments:


Mb1 = 100·sin 0.9t − π2
+ 1,
Mb2 = 200· sin 0.5t − π2 + 1 ,
Mc1max = 1000 Nm, Mc2max = 12000 Nm.

Figures 5–17 present the results of the conducted simulation tests. Graphs of the
assumed disturbance moments from the base for simulation are shown in Figure 5. Figure 6
presents the sum of the disturbing moments from the base and shots Mei = Mbi + Msi .
Figure 7 shows the angular displacement of the ARS in azimuth and elevation as a function
of time during interference of the base on which the set is placed (moments Mbi ) and
during the firing of three shots (moments Msi ). In Figure 8, we can observe the realized
(simulated) and desired trajectories for the ARS movement with the abovementioned
interferences. To control and stabilize the set, a PID controller was used with optimally
selected parameters due to the minimum integral absolute error. While Figures 9 and 10
show the same relationships with the same interactions when using an optimal LQR control,
it can be observed that the modified LQR more effectively reduces the impact of three shots
being fired from the base on which ARS is mounted.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 11 of 16

Figure 5. Moments interfering as a function of time affecting ARS from the base side.

Figure 6. Moments interfering as a function of time when firing 3 shots affecting ARS.

Figure 7. Angular displacements simulated and desired in azimuth and elevation with interference—
PID control.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 12 of 16

Figure 8. Simulated and desired trajectory of ARS with interference—PID control.

Figure 9. Angular displacements simulated and desired in azimuth and elevation with interference—
LQR control.

Figure 10. Simulated and desired trajectory of ARS with interference—LQR control.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 13 of 16

Figure 11. Angular displacements simulated and desired in azimuth and elevation with random
interference—PID control.

Figure 12. Simulated and desired trajectory of ARS with random interference—PID control.

Figure 13. Angular displacements simulated and desired in azimuth and elevation with random
interference—LQR control.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 14 of 16

Figure 14. Angular displacements noised and estimated in azimuth and elevation—LQG control.

Figure 15. Angular displacements simulated, estimated, and desired in azimuth and elevation—LQG
control.

Figure 16. Noised, estimated, and desired trajectories of ARS—LQG control.

Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 15 of 16

Figure 17. Simulated, desired, and estimated trajectories of ARS—LQG control.

With additional measurement and process random interference on the ARS base,
both PID and LQR controllers fail—the dynamic effects are very large and unacceptable.
However, it should be noted that the modified LQR controller works better than the optimal
PID controller. This is particularly evident in Figures 11 and 13. However, in the case
of random interferences, the LQR regulator is also insufficient to ensure LOS tracking
accuracy (see Figure 13).
In this case, the most effective in action is the modified LQG regulator. This is shown in
Figures 14–17. They show that random disturbances that affect the ARS during movement
on uneven terrain can be effectively neutralized. It should be emphasized that, in order to
destroy an air target, such sets currently fire bullets while being in a stationary position.
Using the modified LQG method presented in this paper, it becomes possible to shoot a
maneuverable air target during the set movement. This increases the effectiveness and
mobility of the ARS.

5. Conclusions
The algorithm presented in this paper allows for the precise control of an ARS system
in case of disturbances. The example presented in this article shows that ARS tracking of the
maneuvering air target using a Jacobian in a closed control loop is more effective than using
a classical PID or LQR control. As the preliminary results show, improving the precision of
an ARS control can be crucial in reaching a target in such artillery rocket systems.
As a result, the algorithm allows for a degree of control so that it is possible to minimize
the impact of kinematic effects on the side of a moving carrier (off-road vehicle or ship)
and random external interferences. This increases effectiveness and mobility of ARS and
allows it to attack air targets during its movement on uneven surfaces. In the case of a land
vehicle, the shooting can take place without the necessity to stop it.
Theoretical considerations and simulation studies have shown that, in conditions of
ARS interference, it is preferable to use Jacobians in both extended Kalman filtering and
optimal LQR control. Therefore, the effectiveness of the modified LQG regulator has been
demonstrated. The presented control algorithm updates the model of the set at each time
step, thus making the model linearized at a preset operating point. In contrast, however,
if the real system deviated significantly from the preset operating point for an extended
period of time (due to, e.g., failure or inaccurate calibration), then the control actually
developed would not be optimal. In this case, a different type of controller, e.g., a sliding
mode controller, should be used for the transition period until the real system and set
operating point converge sufficiently, after which a switchover to the LQG controller could
take place.
The mentioned issue should be investigated in additional studies. Moreover, in further
research, the effectiveness of this regulator should be tested in field conditions when firing
an artillery rocket set to a low-flying maneuvering air target.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1507 16 of 16

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.K. and P.S.; methodology, Z.K.; software, Z.K. and P.S.;
validation, Z.K. and P.S.; formal analysis, Z.K. and P.S.; investigation, Z.K. and P.S.; resources, Z.K.
and P.S.; data curation, Z.K. and P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.K. and P.S.; writing—
review and editing, Z.K. and P.S.; visualization, Z.K. and P.S.; supervision, Z.K. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hu, Q.; Ji, H.B.; Zhang, Y.Q. Tracking of maneuvering non-ellipsoidal extended target with varying number of sub-objects. Mech.
Syst. Signal Process. 2018, 99, 262–284. [CrossRef]
2. Koruba, Z.; Krzysztofik, I.; Dziopa, Z. An analysis of the gyroscope dynamics of an anti-aircraft missile launched from a mobile
platform. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci. 2010, 8, 645–650. [CrossRef]
3. Zarchan, P. Tactical and strategic missile Guidance. In MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lexington; American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.
4. Gacek, J.; Gwardecki, J.; Kobierski, J.; Leciejewski, Z.; Łuszczak, S.; Milewski, S.; Świ˛etek, T.; Woźniak, R.; Wójcik, Z. Structure
and innovative Technologies In the new Polish 35 mm naval weapon system. In Conference Materials of 11th International Armament
Conference on Scientific Aspects of Armament & Safety Technology; Military University of Technology: Warsaw, Poland, 2016;
pp. 246–247.
5. ZU-23-2MR Naval Anti-Aircraft Artillery System. Available online: http://www.zmt.tarnow.pl/wordpress/wp-content/
uploads/2018/09/wrobel_eng.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2021).
6. Sabak, J. Pilica—Altlerry-Rocket Anti-Aitcraft Set. Defence24.pl. Available online: https://www.defence24.pl/pilica-rakietowo-
artyleryjski-zestaw-przeciwlotniczy (accessed on 8 April 2021). (In Polish).
7. Zhuang, M.; Atherton, D.P. Automatic tuning of optimum PID controllers. IEE Proc. D 1993, 140, 216–224. [CrossRef]
8. Koruba, Z.; Szmidt, P.; Gapiński, D. Analysis of Dynamics of Remote-Controlled Artillery-Missile System. Probl. Mechatron. 2018,
9, 73–84. [CrossRef]
9. Szmidt, P.; Koruba, Z.; Gapiński, D. Control of Missile-artillery system with modified linear-quadratic regulator. Sci. Lett. Rzesz.
Univ. Technol. Mech. 2018, 90, 223–235. (In Polish) [CrossRef]
10. Kim, P. Kalman Filter for Beginners with MATLAB Examples; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2011.
11. Ashish, T. Modern Control Design with Matlab and Simulink; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
12. Fu, H.; Chen, X.; Wang, W.; Wu, M. MRAC for unknown discrete-time nonlinear systems based on supervised neural dynamic
programming. Neurocomputing 2020, 384, 130–141. [CrossRef]
13. Radac, M.-B.; Borlea, A.-I. Virtual State Feedback Reference Tuning and Value Iteration Reinforcement Learning for Unknown
Observable Systems Control. Energies 2021, 14, 1006. [CrossRef]
14. Perrusquía, A.; Yu, W. Robust control under worst-case uncertainty for unknown nonlinear systems using modified reinforcement
learning. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 2020, 30, 2920–2936. [CrossRef]
15. Available online: http://www.zmt.tarnow.pl/wordpress/item/23mm-przeciwlotniczy-morski-zestaw-artyleryjsko-rakietowy-
zu-23-2mr/ (accessed on 30 August 2020).
16. Bużantowicz, W. Tuning of a Linear-Quadratic Stabilization System for an Anti-Aircraft Missile. Aerospace 2021, 8, 48. [CrossRef]
17. Awrejcewicz, J.; Koruba, Z. Classical Mechanics. Applied Mechanics and Mechatronics. In Advances in Mechanics and Mathematics;
Monograph; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 30.
18. Meditch, J.S. Stochastic Optimal Linear Estimation and Control; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1969; p. 312.
19. Tzoumas, V.; Carlone, L.; Pappas, G.J.; Jadbabaie, A. Sensing-Constrained LQG Contro. IEEE 2018. [CrossRef]
20. Kwakernaak, H.; Sivan, R. Linear Optimal Control Systems; Wiley-Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 1979.
21. Gajic, Z. Linear Dynamic Systems and Signals; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003.
22. Astrom, K. Introduction to Stochastic Control Theory; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1970.
23. Shneyder, N.A. Missile Guidance and Pursuit: Kinematics, Dynamics and Control; Horwood Publishing: Chichester, UK, 1998.
24. Baranowski, L. Effect of the mathematical model and integration step on the accuracy of the results of computation of artillery
projectile flight parameters. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci. 2013, 61, 475–484. [CrossRef]
25. Hosseinzadeh, M.; Cotorruelo, A.; Limon, D.; Garone, E. Constrained Control of Linear Systems Subject to Combinations of
Intersections and Unions of Concave Constraints. IEEE Control Syst. Lett. 2019, 3, 571–576. [CrossRef]
26. Szmidt, P.; Gapiński, D.; Koruba, Z. The analysis of selection optimal parameters of PID controllers for a modified artillery-missile
system. Eng. Mech. 2017, 23, 970–973.