JDMS

Original article

Journal of Defense Modeling and

Modeling of dynamics, guidance, and Simulation: Applications,

Methodology, Technology
9(2) 101­–112
control systems of air-to-surface missiles © 2012 The Society for Modeling
and Simulation International
DOI: 10.1177/1548512911407647
dms.sagepub.com

Bülent Özkan1, M Kemal Özgören2 and

Gökmen Mahmutyazıcıoğlu1

Abstract
In this study, the generic dynamic models of air-to-surface missiles are given in addition to the related guidance and
control schemes. In this extent, two-part missile configurations are considered as well as the traditional single-part
missile geometries. The dynamic modelling part consists of the general equations of motion for both of the mentioned
types of missile configurations, aerodynamic modelling and corresponding transfer functions, which are used in the design
of missile autopilots. Further, the notable guidance laws applicable to such missiles are given along with the relevant
autopilot, or missile control system, models. Regarding the mission profile of these munitions, the target is modelled as
a surface vehicle moving on the ground. After conducting some computer simulations based on the proposed models,
the study is concluded by a general evaluation section.

Keywords
air-to-surface missile, control system, dynamic modelling, guidance model, single-part missile, surface target, two-part
missile

1. Introduction
The guidance and control of air-to-surface missiles have
been among popular problems in control engineering in
recent years. When considering moving and manoeuvring
targets, the problems get more complicated. In this sense,
one of the primary factors indicating the success of air-to-
surface missiles, which are used against stationary, moving
and even manoeuvring targets, is the guidance law and rel-
evant control system considered. Apart from the final miss
distance values, the simplicity and ease of implementation
issues are also important in deciding on a guidance law.1–3
When the moving or manoeuvring targets are consid-
ered, the effectiveness of the missile gains more impor-
tance. In this sense, the two-part missiles come into the
picture as a viable alternative to their single-part counter-
parts. In particular, the better stability and higher steady-
state accuracy properties of the two-part missiles have put
them ahead of the single-part missiles. This mainly results
counterpart in turn. However, their higher costs make them
disadvantageous over the single-part ones.4
In the physical sense, guidance laws are derived with
regard to the missile–target engagement geometry which is
considered to orient the missile towards an intended target.
Looking at the relevant literature, it is seen that the guid-
ance laws are compared with respect to their implementa-
tion issues, acceleration requirements and final miss
distance properties. Moreover, they are evaluated accord-
ing to their compatibility depending on the target and
engagement characteristics regarded. The mentioned stud-
ies are conducted by taking into account the possible flight
scenario, and the performance characteristics of missiles
1 The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Defense
Industries Research and Development Institute (TÜBİTAK-SAGE), Turkey
2 Mechanical Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University,

from the fact that the diverting effect of the misalignment
moment originated by the thrust of the rocket motor is min-
imized by separating the rear part of the missile via a roller
bearing in two-part missiles. The mentioned configuration
change leads the flow around the two-part missile to
become more laminar than the flow over its single-part
Turkey
Corresponding author:
Bülent Özkan, The Scientific and Technological Research Council
of Turkey, Defense Industries Research and Development Institute
(TÜBİTAK-SAGE), P. K. 16, 06261, Mamak, Ankara, Turkey.
Email: bozkan@sage.tubitak.gov.tr

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015

102 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 9(2)
are also investigated under challenging engagement condi-
tions.1,4–6 In this sense, the guidance laws developed for
guided missiles can be categorized with respect to certain
aspects. One of the categorization classes covers the type of
resulting guidance commands. Namely, the guidance laws
generating commands to the missile control system in the
form of linear acceleration components can be called
‘acceleration-based guidance laws’, whereas those dictat-
ing command signals in the form of orientation angles can
be called ‘angle-based guidance laws’. Since the guidance
command constitutes its reference signal, the missile con-
trol system, usually known as ‘missile autopilot’, is usually
designed according to the type of the command signal.7
In this study, the dynamic models of single- and two-
part air-to-surface missiles are presented as well as the rel-
evant control system schemes obeying the commands
generated by the regarded guidance laws. Taking a moving
surface target model into account, the performance charac-
teristics of the mentioned types of missiles are examined.
2. Missile dynamic model
2.1 Equations of motion of the missiles
In this study, both single- and two-part air-to-surface missile
configurations are considered. Once the governing differen-
tial equations of motion for a more complicated two-part
missile have been derived, they can be easily adapted to
single-part ones. Here, an aerodynamically controlled
canard-type two-part missile configuration is considered as
schematically represented in Figure 1. The mentioned
Figure 1.  Two-part missile model.
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015
missile model is a combination of two relatively rotating
parts that are connected to each other by means of a roller

bearing. Here, ui(b) (i = 1, 2 and 3) represents the unit vec-
tors of the body-fixed frame of the missile (Fb). C1, C2 and
CM denote the mass centres of the front body, or body 1, rear
body, or body 2, and entire missile body, respectively, with
definitions that xM and d12 indicate the distances from C1 to
CM and from C1 to C2. As shown, dj (j = 1, 2, 3 and 4) rep-
resents the fin deflections of the aerodynamic control sur-
 
faces, that is, the canards. rC1/ Oe and rC 2/ Oe indicate the
position vectors of points C1 and C2 with respect to point Oe
which is the origin of the Earth-fixed frame (F0), whose axes

are described by the unit vector ui(0) (i = 1, 2 and 3).
Regarding the kinematic relationships between the two
bodies, the equations of motion can be derived using the
Newton–Euler equations to express the force and moment
balance on each body as given below:4
   
FA1 + F21 + m1 g = m1 aC1 / Oe (1)
M A1 + M 21 + rB /C1 ´ F21 = J C1 ×a
a b / 0 +~w b / 0 ´ J C1 ×~
w b / 0 (2)
    
FA2 + FT 2 + F12 + m2 g = m2 aC2 / Oe (3)
      
M A2 + M T 2 + M12 + rB /C2 ´ F12 = J C2 ×a a s/0 +
  
~w s / 0 ´ J C2 ×~
w s / 0 (4)
In Equations (1)–(4), the following definitions are made for
i, j = 1 and 2:
 
Fij and M ij : reaction force and moment vectors applied by
body i on body j;
Özkan et al. 103

 
FT2 and M T2 : thrust force and thrust misalignment the preceding two-part configuration by treating body 1 and
moment vectors acting on body 2; body 2 as rigidly connected to each other and hence elimi-
mi: mass of body i; nating the uncontrolled roll dynamics of body 2 formulated
J{C : inertia dyadic of body i about its own mass centre;
i
in Equation (9). Thus, considering the same definitions
g
 : acceleration of gravity; stated above with the new definition that Ia represents the
rB /Ci : position vector between point Ci and the midpoint of axial moment of inertia component of the missile, the next
the
 roller bearing (point B); expressions can be written for the dynamics of the single-

w b/0 and ~
~ w s/0 : angular velocity vectors of bodies 1 and 2 part missiles:4,8,9
with respect to F0;
ar (bb/0) : angular acceleration vector of body 1 with respect to F0; uo - rv + qw = ^ X + XTh /m + gx (12)
 
aC1 / Oe and aC2 / Oe : acceleration vectors of C1 and C2 with vo + ru - pw =^Y + YTh /m + gy (13)
respect to Oe. wo - qu + pv =^ Z + ZTh /m + gz (14)
po = L/Ia (15)
Putting the kinematic relationships between the bodies
qo = 8^ M + MTh + _ It - Iai pr B/It (16)
into Equations (1)–(4), along with the corresponding defi-
nitions, the equations of motion of the two-part missile, ro = 8^ N + NTh + _ Ia - It i pq B /It (17)
including the uncontrolled roll dynamics of body 2, come
into the picture in the forthcoming manner:4 In most of the planned flight trajectory, the air-to-sur-
face missiles have a non-thrusted motion. Thus, the force
uo - rv + qw = ^ X + XTh /m + gx (5) and moment terms related to the thrust will vanish for
vo + ru - pw = ^Y + YTh /m + gy (6) this stage, that is, XT = YT = ZT = LT = MT = NT = 0.
wo - qu + pv = ^ Z + ZTh /m + gz (7) Furthermore, the uncontrolled roll dynamics of the two-
po = _ L1 + bt {o si /Ia1 (8) part missiles will be out of concern regarding their con-
po 2 = _ L2 + LT - bt {o si /Ia2 (9) trolled motion. Hence, the equations for both single- and
qo - pr _1 - n1i + p2 r c2 = _ M + MT - m2 ZTi /I lt (10) two-part air-to-surface missiles can be simplified to the
ro + pq_1 - n1i - p2 q c2 = _ N + NT + m2YTi /I lt (11) following form:

where po 2 = po + { p s , n1 = m1 /m , I lt = It - n1m2 d12

2
, uo - rv + qw = ^ X/mh + gx (18)
c2 = Ia2 /I lt , m2 = d12 - xM , M = M1 + M l2 + xM Z1 - m2 Z l2, vo + ru - pw = ^Y/mh + gy (19)
N = N1 + N l2 - xMY1 + m2Y l2 , MT = M lT2 and NT = N lT2 . wo - qu + pv = ^ Z/mh + gz (20)
The definitions used within Equations (5)–(11) are listed po = L/Ia (21)
 qo - pr= M/It (22)
below
(b)
as the relevant components are expressed in u1( b ) ,
(b) ro + pq= N/It (23)
u2 and u3 axes:

zs: spin angle of body 2 about u1( b ) axis;
 2.2 Aerodynamic model of the missiles
p, q and r: components of ~ w b/0 ;

p2: roll component of ~w s/0 in Fb; In this study, a linearized aerodynamic model is considered
u, v and w: components of the velocity vector of CM; by expressing the aerodynamic force and moment compo-
X, Y and Z: aerodynamic force components of the entire nents within Equations (5)–(17) in terms of the dynamic
missile; pressure (q∞), missile cross-sectional area (SM) and missile
L, M and N: aerodynamic moment components of the entire diameter (dM), as given below:4,10
missile; 
XT, YT and ZT: components of FT2 ; X = Cx q3 SM (24)
LT, MT and NT: components of M T2 ; Y = Cy q3 SM (25)
m, m1 and m2: masses of entire missile, body 1 and body 2, Z = Cz q3 SM (26)
respectively; L = Cl q3 SM dM (27)
Ia1 and Ia2: axial moment of inertia components of body 1 M = Cm q3 SM dM (28)
and body 2; N = Cn q3 SM dM (29)
It: transverse moment of inertia component of the entire
missile;  As r represents the air density at the related altitude and
gx, gy and gz: components of g; r ≈ 3.14, q∞ and SM can be calculated using the following
bt: viscous friction constant of the roller bearing between equalities:11
the bodies.
For the single-part missiles, the necessary equations of q3 = ^1/2h t v M
2
(30)
motion can be adapted from the expressions obtained for SM = ^r/4h d M
2
(31)

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015

104 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 9(2)

Indicating the magnitude of the missile velocity vector by ay ^ s h ny2 s2 + ny1s + ny0 (45)
Gad ^ s h = = 2
vM, Cx, Cy, Cz, Cl, Cm and Cn, coefficients can be written as dr ^ s h s + d y1 s + d y0
linear functions of the angle of attack (a), side-slip angle
(b), aileron, elevator and rudder deflections (da, de and dr, where z1 denotes the roll angle of the entire missile while
respectively), p, q and r, as given below:4 it corresponds to the roll angle of body 1 for two-part mis-
sile configurations and az and ay represent the lateral accel-
Cx = Cx0 (32) eration components of the entire missile in pitch and yaw
Cy = Cy b + Cy dr + Cy x r
b d r
(33) directions, respectively. The gains Ld, Lp1, nz0, nz1, nz2, dp0,
Cz = Cz a + Cz de + Cz x q
a d q
(34) dp1, ny0, ny1, ny2, dy0 and dy1 are functions of the dimen-
Cl = Cl da + Cl x p
d p
(35) sional, kinematic and aerodynamic parameters of the
Cm = Cm a + Cm de + Cm x q
a d q
(36) missile.4
Cn = Cn b + Cn dr + Cn x r
b d r
(37)
3. Guidance laws
Here, x = dM /_2vMi and Cx0 is a static aerodynamic force
component in the axial direction. As mentioned above, the guidance laws considered can be
In this scheme, Equation (32) is held regarding the small evaluated into two main groups: acceleration- and angle-
values of a. In addition, these coefficients are dependent on based guidance laws. In application, these laws are, in gen-
the time derivative of a (ao ). However, the effect of varia- eral, utilized during the terminal guidance phase of the
tion of a is neglected within this work, since a takes small missile–target engagement scenarios.
values in the considered missile–target engagement
scenarios.
3.1 Acceleration-based guidance laws
The stability derivatives represented by Cy , Cy , Cy , b d r

Cz , Cz , Czq , Cld , Cl p , Cma , Cm , Cm , Cn , Cn and Cn are

a d d q b d r
In this content, proportional navigation guidance (PNG),
functions of Mach number (M∞) and they are continuously velocity pursuit guidance (VPG) and augmented propor-
updated depending on the present values of the relevant tional navigation guidance (APNG) laws can be evaluated.
flight parameters during the computer simulations. Within
Equations (32)–(37), a and b are defined in the following 3.1.1 Proportional navigation guidance law. As the most
fashion:11 widely used guidance law for missiles, the PNG law can
be expressed regarding the yaw and pitch planes of the
a = arctan ^w/uh (38) missile–target engagement geometry in the following
b = arcsin _v/vMi (39) fashion:4,10

Moreover, da, de and dr are provided by the control sur- a wc2 = N2 vM9 mo y cos _cm i - mo p sin _cm isin _ my - hm iC (46)
faces and are defined in terms of the fin deflections in the
a c = - N v mo cos _ m - h i (47)
following manner:4 w3 3 M p y m

where a wc2 and a wc3 indicate the command acceleration

da = _d1 + d3i /2 (40)
components in the yaw and pitch planes, respectively.
de = _d2 - d4i /2 (41)
Moreover, N2 and N3 show the effective navigation ratios,
dr = _d1 - d3i /2 (42)
while my and mp indicate, respectively, the yaw and pitch
angles of the line-of-sight (LOS) between the missile and
2.3 Transfer functions of the missiles target. Here, the flight path angle components of the missile
in yaw and pitch planes (hm and cm) can be calculated using
In order to design the roll, pitch and yaw autopilots, the
the following expressions:12,13
transfer functions between the selected inputs and outputs
are required. These transfer functions are obtained regard-
hm = } - arctan 8^c1 - c2h /^s1 - s2hB (48)
ing the linearized model of the missile. Thus, they can be
generated from Equations (18)–(23) by taking the gravity cm = arctan
`us^ih s_{i - vc^ihjc_} - hm i - uc_{i s_} - hm i (49)
> H
as an external disturbance, that is, gx = gy = gz = 0 , as
follows:4 vs^ih + uc^ih s_{i
{1 ^ s h Ld
G{d ^ s h = = (43) where c^vh = cos ^vh , s^vh = sin ^vh for any angle v and
da ^ s h s_ s - Lp1i
z, i and } denote the roll, pitch and yaw angles of the mis-
az ^ s h n s 2 + n z1 s + n z0 sile, respectively. The coefficients c1, c2, s1 and s2 are func-
Gad ^ s h = = z22 (44)
de ^ s h s + d p1 s + d p0 tions of missile kinematic parameters.

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015

Özkan et al. 105
Figure 2.  Engagement planes of the missile.
The definitions of hm and cm are shown in Figure 2,
 
where vM and vT stand for the velocity vectors of the mis-
 As the most commonly used angle-based guidance laws, the
sile and target, while rT/M denotes the LOS vector.
Moreover, ht and ct represent the flight path angle of the
w
target as ui( ) (i = 1, 2 and 3) indicates the unit vectors of
the wind frame, which is defined as the reference frame
attached to the engagement planes of the missile.4
3.1.2 Velocity pursuit guidance law. Taking N2 and N3 coeffi-
cients as unity in Equations (46) and (47), the PNG law
turns into the VPG law. In this approach, the aim is to align
 
the missile velocity vector ( vM / Oe ) and LOS vector ( rT/M )
 respectively:1,4
and thus to keep the direction of vM / Oe as indicating the
target.7
3.1.3 Augmented proportional navigation guidance law. When
moving or manoeuvring targets are under consideration,
the APNG law comes into the picture as a viable choice. In
this scheme, the guidance commands to the lateral accel-
eration components of the missile are determined by add-
ing the product of the half of the relevant lateral acceleration
component of the target by the corresponding effective
navigation ratio to the command expressions derived for
the PNG law as given in Equations (46) and (47). Thus, the
APNG commands are determined in the following manner
as aT2 and aT3 terms from the target acceleration vector:1,6
= N2 *vM9 my cos _cm i - mp sin _cm isin _ my - hm iC4 (50)
o o
a wc2
+^aT2 /2h
a wc3 = - N39vM mo p cos _ my - hm i + _ aT3 /2iC (51)
where aT2 and aT3 stand for the components of the target
acceleration vectors on the yaw and pitch planes of the mis-
sile, respectively.
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015
3.2 Angle-based guidance laws
body pursuit guidance (BPG) and linear homing guidance
(LHG) laws can be considered within the scope of this study.
3.2.1 Body pursuit guidance law.  In the BPG approach, it is
intended to put the longitudinal axis of the missile, that is,

the ui(b) axis, onto the LOS between the missile and target.
Thus, the guidance commands in the pitch and yaw planes
(ic and }c) can be derived in the following manner as i and
}, indicating the pitch and yaw angles of the missile,
ic = mp (52)
}c = my (53)
3.2.2 Linear homing guidance law.  In the LHG approach, it is
intended to keep the missile always on the collision triangle
that is formed by the missile, target and predicted intercept
point. For this purpose, the most appropriate way is to ori-
ent the missile velocity vector towards the predicted inter-
cept point at which the missile–target collision will occur
after a while. Then, the resulting guidance commands will
be in the form of the flight path angles of the missile in the
yaw and pitch planes as given below:4,14
hcm = arctan 8_vTy 9t - 9yi /_vTx 9t - 9xiB (54)
ccm = arctan > H (55)
9z - vTz 9t
_vTx 9t - 9xicos _hm i + _vTy 9t - 9yisin _hm i
where Dx, Dy and Dz show the position components of the
target relative to the missile, while vTx, vTy and vTz are the
components of the target velocity vector in F0. In these for-
mulas, Dt represents the time-to-target parameter.
106 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 9(2)
Although its governing Equations in (54) and (55) have
non-linear characteristics, the LHG law imposes a linear
trajectory from the missile to the target, as its name implies.
4. Missile control system
In order to realize the command signals generated by the
guidance laws, whether acceleration or angle based, two
kinds of missile control systems, that is, missile autopilots,
can be designed for controlling the motion of the missile in
its lateral directions. That is, assuming that the roll angle of
the missile is nullified prior to the motion in its lateral
directions, the control systems can be constructed for the
pitch- and yaw-plane motions of the missile. The first type
of control system mentioned above is built to execute the
acceleration-type command signals, whereas the other is
based on the angle-based guidance commands. Both of the
control systems consist of a controller, a control actuation
system (CAS), gyroscopes, accelerometers and plant, that
is, missile.
4.1 Acceleration control system
An acceleration control system is designed in order to obey
the guidance commands, that is, reference acceleration
commands, generated by the PNG, VPG, and APNG laws
such that they operate independently in the pitch and yaw
planes. In this sense, the control system designed for the
pitch-plane motion of the missile can be easily adapted to
the yaw control system if the considered missile configura-
tion has a rotational symmetry as seen in most cases.
Assuming that the roll motion of the missile is compen-
sated by a faster roll autopilot, the control system for the
pitch-plane motion of the missile can be designed by con-
sidering the classical PI (proportional plus integral) control
action with the contribution of the pitch damping as repre-
sented by the following transfer function from the desired
acceleration (azd) to the actual acceleration (az):4
2
_Tp s + 1i` np2 s + np1 s + 1j
az ^ s h
= (56)
azd ^ s h a p 3 s 3 + a p 2 s 2 + a p1 s + 1
where Tp, np1, np2, ap1, ap2 and ap3 are the terms functions of
the dimensional, kinematic and aerodynamic parameters
of the missile. Here, Tp stands for the integral time constant
of the considered control action.4
For the mentioned control system, the characteristic
polynomial of the transfer function in Equation (56) is
Dp ^ s h = ap3 s3 + ap2 s2 + ap1s + 1 (57)
In order to determine the controller gains, the third-order
Butterworth polynomial presented below can be used by
placing the three poles of the control system to desired
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015
locations in accordance with the desired bandwidth value
(~c):4,15,16
B3 ^ s h = _1/~3ci s3 + _2/~2c i s2 + _2/~ci s + 1 (58)
This way, the controller gains can be found by matching
Equations (57) and (58).
In a similar manner, the transfer function from the
desired acceleration (ayd) to the actual acceleration (ay) for
the yaw-plane control system can also be established as fol-
lows. Here, Ty, ny1, ny2, ay1, ay2 and ay3 are the parameters
related to the dimensional, kinematic and aerodynamic
parameters of the missile for the yaw-plane motion, respec-
tively. Moreover, Ty denotes the integral time constant of
the used control action:4
2
ay ^ s h _Ty s + 1i` ny2 s + ny1s + 1j
= (59)
a yd ^ s h a y3 s 3 + a y2 s 2 + a y1 s + 1
In Equations (56) and (59), ayd = a wc2 and azd = a wc3 ,
regarding the definitions of guidance commands, are given
in the previous section.15
4.2 Angle control system
In order for the missile to realize the guidance commands
produced by the BPG and LHG laws, a state feedback-type
angle control system in which the integral of the error
between the reference and actual values of the controlled
state variable, that is, flight path angle, is defined as an
additional state variable and is constructed for the motion
of the missile both in its pitch and yaw planes. In this
scheme, the guidance commands generated by the BPG law
in terms of the orientation angles of the missile with respect
to the ground, that is, ic and }c, are converted into the
flight path angle commands, ( hcm and ccm ), as below:4
hcm = }c + 7 b/ cos ^ihA (60)
ccm = ic - a (61)
On the other hand, the commands to the flight path angle
components resulted from the LHG law can be directly
utilized.4
Considering the roll-free motion of the missile in the
pitch plane and taking the gravity effect as an external dis-
turbance, the closed-loop transfer function of the angle
control system between the desired and actual values of
the flight path angle (cmd and cm) in the yaw plane can be
found from the resulting expressions in the following
manner:4
cm ^ s h nc3 s3 + nc2 s2 + nc1 s + 1
= (62)
cmd ^ s h dc4 s4 + dc3 s3 + dc2 s2 + dc1s + 1
Özkan et al. 107

where nc1, nc2, nc3, dc1, dc2, dc3 and dc4 are the terms for the
functions of the dimensional, kinematic and aerodynamic
parameters of the missile, respectively.4
The characteristic polynomial of the transfer function in
Equation (62) is as follows:
Actually, the motion surface of the target is not planar.
Yet, since the variations in the vertical direction are very
small compared to the displacements in the horizontal
plane, the altitude of the target is taken to be constant in the
modelling as given below:

D^ s h = dc4 s4 + dc3 s3 + dc2 s2 + dc1s + 1 (63) zT ^ t h = zT0 (70)

In order to determine the controller gains, Equation (63)

6. Missile–target engagement model
should be equated to the fourth-order Butterworth polyno-
mial as given below:4 In the missile–target engagement geometry, the LOS dis-
tance (rT/M), my and mp can be obtained from the following
B4 ^ s h = _1/~4c i s4 + _2.613/~3ci s3 equations:
(64)
2 2
+ _3.414/~c i s + _2.613/~ci s + 1
rT/M = ∅x2 + ∅y2 + ∅z2 (71)
Similarly, the angle control system can be adapted for λy = arctan ^∆y/∆xh (72)
m
the yaw-plane motion of the missile with the transfer func- λp = arctan 8- ∆z cos _m
m λyi /∆x B (73)
tion from the desired flight path angle (hmd) to its actual
value (hm) in the following fashion. Here, nh1, nh2, nh3, dh1, Since a ground target is considered in the study, the total
dh2, dh3 and dh4 are the terms for the functions of the dimen- miss distance (dmiss) at the end of the missile–target engage-
sional, kinematic and aerodynamic parameters of the mis- ment, that is, at t = tF, can be calculated from the following
sile, respectively.4 formula, just as the vertical component of rTM becomes
zero, that is, ∅z = 0 :
hm ^ s h nh3 s3 + nh2 s2 + nh1s + 1
= (65)
hmd ^ s h dh4 s4 + dh3 s3 + dh2 s2 + dh1s + 1 dmiss = ∅x2 ^tFh + ∅y2 ^tFh (74)

5. Target kinematics 7. Computer simulations

Regarding the target as a ground vehicle moving on the As an example to the implementation of the models given
Earth surface, the kinematic parameters describing its above, the performance characteristics of a single-part air-
motion on the horizontal plane are the normal and tangen- to-surface missile can be obtained by conducting relevant
tial acceleration components (a Tn and a Tt ), magnitude of the computer simulations with consistent numerical values of
target velocity vector (vT), and heading angle (ht). the necessary system parameters as shown in Table 1.
Specifying a Tn and a Tt , as well as the initial values of the Combining the models given above along with a strap-
target velocity and the heading angle (vT0 and ht0) as t0 indi- down, or body-fixed, seeker with a field of view of ±30°
cates the initiation of the missile–target engagement, vT and both in the pitch and yaw directions, the entire guidance
ht can be obtained as functions of time by the following and control scheme is constructed and the missile–target
integrals, with s being the integration variable: engagement is simulated for different situations with this
t model.17 The PNG, VPG, APNG, BPG and LHG laws are
vT ^ t h = vT0 + # aTt ^vhdv (66) implemented for the zero initial heading error value of the
t0 missile against both stationary and manoeuvring targets
t
ht ^ t h = ht0 + # 8 aTn ^vh /vT ^vhBdv (67) Table 1.  Essential missile parameters
t0
Parameter Symbol Value
Afterwards, with the initial values of xT0 and yT0, the
position of the target on the horizontal plane can be Diameter dM 70 mm
described by the following equations as functions of time: Cross-sectional area SM 3848.5 mm2
t Total length LM 2000 mm
xT ^ t h = xT0 + # vT ^vh cos _ht ^vhidv (68) Total mass
Axial moment of inertia
m
Ia
17.55 kg
0.0214 kg m2
t0
t Transverse moment of inertia It 5.855 kg m2
yT ^ t h = yT0 + # vT ^vh sin _ht ^vhidv (69) Acceleration limit of the missile amax 30 g
t0 Cant angle of the fixed tail fins – 0°

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015

108 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 9(2)
with a constant speed of 90 km/h and a manoeuvre level of
0.3g on its motion plane (g = 9.81 m/s2). The change in the
target speed, that is, its tangential acceleration component,
is disregarded. The effective navigation ratios of the PNG
(N2 and N3) are taken to be 3 in both the yaw and pitch
planes.1 The final bandwidth values of both the acceleration
and angle control systems are set to 5 Hz (~c = 31.4 rad/s).
The CAS is modelled as a second-order system with a
bandwidth value of 20 Hz such that its dynamics does not
affect the control system dynamics and it is assumed that
the angular deflections of the control fins connected to the
CAS vary within the range of ±20°. The operating frequen-
cies of the gyroscopes and accelerometers are assigned to
be 110 Hz. The numerical values of the essential missile
parameters used in the relevant computer simulations con-
ducted for the terminal guidance phase of the missile–target
engagement process are given in Table 1.
Aerodynamic coefficients are computed for the M∞
range of 0.3–2.7, de and dr ranges of between –10° and 10°
and a and b ranges of between –17° and 19°. Depending on
Table 2.  Initial conditions of the missile and target kinematic parameters
Parameter Value Parameter
xM0 0 p0
yM0 450 m q0
zM0 200 m r0
vM0 408 m/s (M∞ = 1.2) a0, b0
hm0, cm0 0 xT0
Figure 3. MATLAB® SIMULINK® model of the missile guidance and control system.
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015
the current state of the missile, the appropriate values of the
aerodynamic terms are continuously calculated using rele-
vant look-up tables prepared for the ranges given below.
For the values of the concerned parameters other than the
numbers given here, the corresponding coefficients are
computed by making interpolation or extrapolation. The
obtained values are used for the yaw motion as well, with
regard to the rotational symmetry of the missile.4 The initial
values of the missile and target kinematic parameters
related to the engagement are shown in Table 2.
Thus, the computer simulations are performed in the
MATLAB® SIMULINK® environment using the entire
guidance and control simulation model given in Figure 3
for the situations given above; the attained results are pre-
sented in Table 3. These results are found for the terminal
miss distance, total engagement time and maximum accel-
eration requirement of the missile. The trajectories of the
missile and target within the engagement scenarios with
the PNG, VPG, APNG, BPG and LHG laws against the
manoeuvring target are shown in Figures 4–8.
Value Parameter Value
50 rpm yT0 650 m
5 rpm zT0 0
5 rpm vT0 25 m/s
(=90 km/h)
0 ht0 0
1000 m aTt 0
Özkan et al. 109

Table 3.  Simulation results obtained for the control systems with constant bandwidth
Target type Guidance law Terminal miss Total engagement Maximum acceleration
distance (m) time (s) requirement (g)
Stationary PNG 3.079 2.823 3.377
VPG 37.670 2.723 24.659
APNG 3.079 2.823 3.377
BPG 31.332 2.763 84.386
LHG 1.129 2.828 32.488
Manoeuvring PNG 2.968 3.051 2.903
VPG 63.448 2.857 14.764
APNG 3.046 3.050 2.907
BPG 59.436 2.868 32.496
LHG 0.721 3.061 77.340

PNG: proportional navigation guidance, VPG: velocity pursuit guidance, APNG: augmented proportional navigation guidance, BPG: body pursuit
guidance, LHG: linear homing guidance.

Figure 4.  Engagement with the proportional navigation guidance law.

Figure 5.  Engagement with the velocity pursuit guidance law.

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015

110 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 9(2)

Figure 6.  Engagement with the augmented proportional navigation guidance law.

Figure 7.  Engagement with the body pursuit guidance law.

Figure 8.  Engagement with the linear homing guidance law.

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015

Özkan et al. 111
8. Discussion and conclusion
In this study, the dynamic modelling of air-to-surface mis-
siles is given along with an aerodynamic model, transfer
functions and possible guidance and control schemes. In
this extent, two-part missile configurations are considered
along with the traditional single-part missile geometries. As
mentioned above, a linearized aerodynamic model is
regarded in this work. Considering planned motion profiles
of the missile configurations in accordance with the
intended targets, it is evaluated that this linearization does
not cause significant errors in monitoring the effects of the
aerodynamic force and moments on the missiles. At the end
of the study, the results of a set computer simulations per-
formed regarding a classical single-part missile configura-
tion are presented. Looking at the results submitted in
Table 3 and Figures 4–8, it is observed that the LHG law
yields the smallest values in the sense of the terminal miss
distance among the others, whereas it appears the worst
approach when the maximum acceleration requirement cri-
terion is considered. Actually, this undesired case is caused
by the initial acceleration demand of the LHG law so as to
orient the velocity vector of the missile towards the present
location of the target. In fact, these high accelerations at the
beginning of the missile–target engagement can be consid-
erably lowered by implementing a varying-bandwidth mis-
sile control system.4 Moreover, when the total engagement
time parameter is taken into consideration, it can be stated
that all the guidance laws handled produce almost the same
results. Unfortunately, these results could not be proven by
actual flight data because there was no opportunity to con-
duct missile–target engagements in the physical world.
Based on the models presented above, the guidance and
control simulations of certain types of single- and two-part
guided missiles can be carried out. In this way, it becomes
possible to observe their advantages and disadvantages
with regard to the comparison criteria, such as terminal
miss distance, total engagement time and maximum accel-
eration requirement. In this sense, it is observed that the
two-part missile model considered becomes more stable
than its single-part rival with the same dimensions and sim-
ilar mass. This result is deduced from the locations of the
poles of the closed-loop missile control systems, that is,
missile autopilots, wherein the poles of the control system
of the two-part missile lie further from the origin on the
left-hand side of the complex plane. Actually, the superior-
ity comes from the stabilization of the thrust misalignment
moment by means of the missile configuration, including a
low-friction roller bearing between its front and rear parts.
Conversely, the single-part missile model behaves with a
more manoeuvrable attitude than the two-part one. One of
the reasons for this result is the relatively lower accelera-
tion requirement of the single-part missile. The small dis-
turbance moment caused by the uncontrolled roll motion of
the rear body of the two-part missile can be evaluated as the
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015
other reason for the weaker performance of the two-part
missile. In addition, the obtained results can be compared
with actual flight data if some of the handled engagements
can be performed in the real world.
Consequently, it can be stated that these models can be
used in simulation studies of air-to-ground missiles with
their own parameter values. Although the present work
does not contribute to the field of defence modelling and
simulation as a new simulation technology, it provides a
useful tool to simulate the performances of single- and two-
part missiles. In addition, different guidance laws and auto-
pilot models can also be integrated into the proposed entire
guidance and control scheme with manoeuvring target
models.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency
in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
9. References
  1. Zarchan P. Tactical and strategic missile guidance. Vol. 157.
Washington DC: Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics,
AIAA, 1994.
 2. Zarchan P. Ballistic missile defense guidance and control
issues. Sci Global Secur 1998; 8: 99–124.
  3. Yang CD, Hsiao FB and Yeh FB. Generalized guidance law
for homing missiles. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 1989;
AES-25: 197–212.
  4. Özkan B. Dynamic modeling, guidance, and control of hom-
ing missiles. PhD Dissertation. Mechanical Engineering
Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey, 2005.
 5. Özkan B, Özgören MK and Mahmutyazıcıoğlu G.
Investigation of the performance of the single- and two-
part missiles against moving surface targets (in Turkish). In:
Proceedings of the National Meeting of Automatic Control
(TOK’07), Sabancı University, İstanbul, Turkey, 2007.
  6. Lin CF. Modern navigation, guidance and control process-
ing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Publication, 1991.
  7. Özkan B, Özgören MK and Mahmutyazıcıoğlu G. Notable
guidance methods that can be applied to homing missiles (in
Turkish). In: Proceedings of the 4th Defence Technologies
Congress (SAVTEK2008), Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey, 2008.
 8. Blakelock JH. Automatic control of aircraft and missiles.
John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1965.
 9. Zipfel PH. Modeling and simulation of aerospace vehicle
dynamics. AIAA, 2007.
10. Özkan B, Özgören MK and Mahmutyazıcıoğlu G. Guidance
and control of two-part homing missiles using the propor-
tional navigation guidance law. In: Proceedings of the AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit,
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2008.
112 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 9(2)
11. Şahin KD. A pursuit evasion game between an aircraft and a
missile. MSc Thesis. Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey, 2002.
12. Berglund E. Guidance and control technology. In: RTO SCI
Lecture Series on Technologies for Future Precision Strike
Missile Systems, Atlanta, GA, 2000, pp.1–10.
13. Özgören MK. Some remarks on rotation sequences and
associated angular velocities. J Mech Mach Theor 1994; 29:
933–940.
14. Özkan B, Özgören MK and Mahmutyazıcıoğlu G.
Implementation of linear homing guidance law on a two-
part homing missile. In: Proceedings of the 17th IFAC World
Congress, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2008.
15. Özkan B, Özgören MK and Mahmutyazıcıoğlu G. Comparison
of the acceleration- and angle-based guidance laws for a short-
range air-to-surface missile (in Turkish). In: Proceedings
of the National Meeting of Automatic Control (TOK’08),
İstanbul Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey, 2008.
16. Özkan B, Özgören MK and Mahmutyazıcıoğlu G. Comparison
of the linear homing, parabolic homing and proportional
navigation guidance methods on a two-part homing missile
against a surface target. Gazi Univ J Sci 2010; 23: 81–87.
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 26, 2015
17. Laser Seeker System Workshop. Martin Marietta training
notes, 1993.
Author Biographies
Bülent Özkan has BSc, MSc and PhD degrees, all in
mechanical engineering. Currently, he works as a chief
researcher at the Scientific and Technological Research
Council of Turkey, Defense Industries Research and
Development Institute (TÜBİTAK-SAGE), Ankara, Turkey.
M Kemal Özgören is a full professor at the Middle East
Technical University, Mechanical Engineering Department,
Ankara, Turkey.
Gökmen Mahmutyazicioğlu has BSc, MSc, and PhD
degrees, all in mechanical engineering. Currently, he works
as a chief researcher at the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey, Defense Industries Research
and Development Institute (TÜBİTAK-SAGE), Ankara,
Turkey.