236 Guidance of Missiles/NPTEL/2012/D.

Ghose

Module 11: Lecture 37

The Proposed Guidance Law

Keywords. Impact Angle Control

12.8 The Proposed Guidance law

Proposition 2 shows that for any impact angle in [−π 0] there exists a point on the
orientation trajectory from which the PN guidance law with N ≥ 3 results in desired
interception. The proposed two stage PN guidance law follows the orientation guid-
ance command given by (12.54) if the value of N satisfying (12.49) is less than 3 until
(12.49) is satisfied with N = 3. After which N = 3 is used. The proposed guidance law
is given as

am = N vm θ̇ (12.88)

αmf −αm0
For engagement geometries with θf −θ0 ≥3
αmf − αm0
N= (12.89)
θf − θ0
αmf −αm0
For engagement geometries with θf −θ0 <3
⎧
⎪ 3αm0
⎨ if t < ts
N= 2π (12.90)
⎪
⎩
3 if t ≥ ts
where, ts is the switching time when the value of the expression (αmf − αm )/(θf − θ)
increases to a value of 3.

12.9 Simulation Results

12.9.1 Constant speed interceptor

To demonstrate the basic properties of the proposed guidance law we use a con-
stant speed interceptor model. We consider vm = 300 m/sec and vt = 100 m/sec
with αt = 0, interceptor initial position (xm0 , zm0 ) = (0, 0) and target initial position
(xt0 , zt0 ) = (5000 m, 0). Simulations are terminated for a closing range of (R <0.1 m).
The interceptor has maximum lateral acceleration limit of ±15 g.
Guidance of Missiles/NPTEL/2012/D.Ghose 237

Case 1: A typical surface to surface engagement

We consider αm0 = 30 deg and αmf = −90 deg for the simulation. The corresponding
αmf − αm0
value of = 1.1066 which is outside the capturable impact angle set (see
θf − θ0
(12.48)) for the classical PNG (N ≥ 3). Solid lines in Fig. 12.7 (a) and Fig. 12.7 (b) show
the interceptor trajectory and lateral acceleration profile, respectively, for the proposed
guidance law. The engagement results in successful interception of the target with a
negligible impact angle error of 0.034 deg. The variation in N is plotted Fig. 12.7 (c).
The interceptor follows the orientation trajectory in the first phase of the guidance with
N = 3/(2π)αm0 = 3/(2π)π/6 = 0.25. With this smaller value of N the orientation
lateral acceleration is also lower (see Fig. 12.7 (b)). On the orientation trajectory the
value of (αmf − αm )/(θf − θ) increases from the initial value of 1.1066 (dashed lines
see Fig. 12.7 (c)). The interceptor departs from the orientation trajectory as (αmf −
αm )/(θf − θ) increases to 3 and switches to N = 3. Switching to a higher value of N
results in a sudden increase in lateral acceleration (see Fig. 12.7 (b)). After switching
to N = 3 the lateral acceleration reduces to zero near interception. As (αmf − αm ) →
0 and (θf − θ) → 0 near interception, the value of (αmf − αm )/(θf − θ) → 1 (see
Fig. 12.7 (c)). Dashed lines in Fig. 12.7 (a) and (b) represent the corresponding results
for classical PNG with N = 1.1066. The terminal lateral acceleration demand for PNG
increases rapidly as (12.42) is violated and results in an impact angle error of 35.45 deg .
We compare the capturability of the proposed guidance law with the existing trajectory
shaping guidance law (Zarchan (2002)) which, by linearization, can also be simplified
to obtain the optimal impact angle constrained guidance law [Ryoo et al. (2005)]. The
trajectory shaping law is given as

(θf − θ)
am = 4Vc θ̇ + 2Vc (12.91)
tgo

where Vc is the closing speed and tgo is the time-to-go. We vary the desired impact angle
αmf and compare the performance in terms of the impact angle error. The comparative
results are shown in Fig. 12.7 (d). The proposed guidance law captures all impact
angles αmf ∈ [−π, 0] where as the trajectory shaping guidance law breaks down near
head on kind of desired terminal geometries.
 238 Guidance of Missiles/NPTEL/2012/D.Ghose

20
Proposed
PNG (N=1.1066)
4000 0
Target

−20
3000

−40
a (m/sec2)

2000
Z (m)

−60

1000
m

−80

0 −100

−1000 −120

Proposed
−140 PNG (N=1.1066)
−2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
X (m) t (sec)

(a) Trajectories (b) Lateral acceleration profiles

3.5 15
N Proposed
(αmf−αm)/(θf−θ) Trajectory Shaping
3

10
2.5
Impact angle error (deg)

2
5
1.5

1
0

0.5

0 −5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0
t (sec) Impact angle (deg)

αmf −αm
(c) N , θf −θ
vs time (d) Capturability comparison

Figure 12.7: Results for Case 1: Constant speed interceptor model

Guidance of Missiles/NPTEL/2012/D.Ghose 239

12.9.2 Realistic interceptor

To validate the applicability of the proposed guidance law in realistic engagement sce-
narios we carry out simulations with a realistic interceptor model. The detailed model
with vehicle and aerodynamic properties is described in Kee et al. (1998) and is bor-
rowed here. All simulations are terminated for a closing distance of R < 0.5 m. We
consider ±20 g limit on the maximum lateral acceleration. As the guidance loop is
closed after the first boost phase is over the orientation command derived from (12.52)
is modified, for realistic engagements, as
(−0 − αmglc ) αmglc
N= 2π = 2π (12.92)
(− 3 − θglc ) ( 3 + θglc )

where αmglc and θglc are the interceptor heading and line-of-sight angle ,respectively,
at the time of guidance loop closure (glc). From (12.40), we see that for a predefined
αmf , the value of θf varies with interceptor speed. Thus, for realistic engagements, the
(αmf −αm )
value of (θf −θ) may deviate from the switching value with variation in interceptor
speed and may reduce below the minimum allowable limit of 2(1 + β). We include
minimum allowable limit on the navigation constant in the terminal phase for realistic
engagements. The modified guidance law, with the gravity compensation, is gives as
follows,

am = N vm θ̇ + g cos αm (12.93)

αmf −αm0
For engagement geometries with θf −θ0 ≥3

αmf − αm
N= (12.94)
θf − θ
αmf −αm0
For engagement geometries with θf −θ0 <3
⎧ α αmf − αm
⎪
⎪  mglc  if < 3, t < ts
⎪
⎪ 2π θf − θ
⎪
⎪ + θglc
⎪
⎪ 3
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
N= αmf − αm αmf − αm (12.95)
⎪
⎪ if > 2(1 + β), t > ts
⎪
⎪ θf − θ θf − θ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ αmf − αm
⎪
⎩ 2(1 + β) if ≤ 2(1 + β), t > ts
θf − θ
where ts is the switching time which is defined as the time when the condition
(αmf − αm )/(θf − θ) = 3 is satisfied first and the interceptor leaves the orientation
240 Guidance of Missiles/NPTEL/2012/D.Ghose

trajectory.Note that the navigation constants in (12.94) and (12.95) are no longer con-
stants and are updated at every guidance cycle.

Case 2: Realistic interceptor against a surface moving target

We consider the desired impact angles to be outside the capture region of the classi-
cal PN guidance law (N ≥ 3) with vt = 50 m/sec, (xm0 , zm0 ) = (0, 0) and (xt0 , zt0 ) =
(5000 m, 0). The interceptor is launched with αm0 = 30◦ . The desired impact angles
are αmf = −45, −90, −135, and −180 deg. The trajectories are plotted in Fig. 12.8 (a)
showing successful interception of the target. The interceptor flies unguided for the
first boost phase (1.5 sec) and then follows the orientation command (see Fig. 12.8 (b))
before switching to attain the desired impact angle. The corresponding impact angle
errors are less than 1 deg. The proposed guidance scheme is derived using the non-
maneuvering target model. However (12.93) is a feedback guidance law that can be
used against maneuvering targets. Next, we consider αmf = −10, − 90, − 180 deg
and simulate engagements with different target step acceleration at levels. The impact
angle errors are plotted in Fig. 12.8 (c). Impact angle errors for αmf = −90, 180 deg
are less than 2 deg and 4 deg, respectively, for target accelerations up to 4 m/sec2 . For
αmf = −10 deg the target closes to the interceptor early leading to lateral acceleration
saturation resulting in higher impact angle errors. To study the robustness of the pro-
posed guidance law we simulate trajectories for values of first order autopilot lag time
constant τ up to 0.3 sec. The results, as plotted in Fig. 12.8 (d), show less than 2 deg
error in impact angle for αmf = −90 and αmf = −180 deg. For αmf = −10 deg, the
lateral acceleration saturation causes an error of around 2.4 deg even with no delays
and the error increases by 0.2 deg for the considered range of τ .

A two stage PNG based guidance law for impact angle constrained interception of
non-stationary non-maneuvering targets in a surface-to-surface engagement scenario
is presented. The orientation guidance (PNG with a lower N ) facilitates the interceptor
to switch to N = 3 and achieve any desired impact angle for surface-to-surface appli-
cations. The feedback implementable form of the guidance law is also presented for
realistic engagements. Simulation results show successful achievement of all impact
angles for constant speed and realistic interceptor models, respectively. Robustness of
the proposed guidance law is verified by realistic simulations with first order autopilot
 Guidance of Missiles/NPTEL/2012/D.Ghose 241

50
Interceptor
3000 Target

0
αmf=−180 deg
2000

−50 α =−45 deg

mf
a (m/sec2)

1000
Z(m)

α =−45 deg
mf
m

0 −100

αmf=−180 deg
−1000 −150

−2000
−200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
X(m) t (sec)

(a) Trajectories (b) Lateral acceleration

4 5
αmf= −180 deg
4.5
2 αmf=−90 deg
4 αmf=−10 deg
0
3.5
Impact angle error (deg)

Impact angle error (deg)

−2
3

−4 2.5

2
−6
1.5
−8
αmf= −10 deg 1
−10 αmf=−90 deg
0.5
αmf=−180 deg
−12 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
a (m/sec2) τ (sec)
t

(c) Impact angle error vs at (d) Impact angle error vs τ

Figure 12.8: Results for Case 2: Realistic interceptor model

242 Guidance of Missiles/NPTEL/2012/D.Ghose

lags. Proportional navigation provides the inherent simplicity, robustness and imple-
mentation feasibility to the proposed guidance scheme. The impact angle performance
is limited by the choice of impact angle in the maneuvering target scenario.

References

1. M. Kim and K.V. Grider: Termainal guidance for impact attitude angle costrained
flight trajetories, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, AES-9, 6
(Dec.1973), 852-859.

2. R.J. York and H.L. Pastrick : Optimal terminal guidance with constraints at final
time, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 14 (June 1977), 381-382.

3. B.S. Kim, J.G. Lee and H.S. Han: Biased PNG law for impact with angular con-
straint, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, AES-34, 1(Jan.1998),
277-288.

4. C.K. Ryoo, H. Cho and M.J. Tahk: Optimal guidnace laws with terminal impact an-
gle constraint, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol.28 No.4, July-August
2005, 724-732.

5. A. Ratnoo and D. Ghose: Impact Angle Constrained Interception of Stationary Tar-

gets, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol.31 No.6, November-December
2008, pp. 1816-1821.

6. A. Ratnoo and D. Ghose: SDRE based guidance law for impact angle constrained
trajectories, Proceedings of AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Ex-
hibit Hilton Head Island, SC, Aug 20-23, 2007.

7. P. Lu, D. B. Doman, and J. D. Schierman: Adaptive Terminal Guidance for Hyper-

velocity Impact in Specified Direction, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol.29 No.2, March-April 2006, 269-278.

8. N. A. Shneydor, Missile Guidance and Pursuit, 1st ed., Horwood Publish-

ing,Chichester, 1998, pp. 104-105.
Guidance of Missiles/NPTEL/2012/D.Ghose 243

9. P. E. Kee, L. Dong, and C. J. Siong: Near optimal midcourse guidance law for flight
vehicle, Proceedings of 36th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV,
January 12-15,1998.

10. M Guelman: A Qualitative Study of Proportional Navigaton, IEEE Transactions on

Aerospace and Electronic Systems, AES-7, (July 1971), 637-643.

11. Zarchan, P., Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance, 4th ed., Vol. 199, AIAA, Virginia,
2002, pp. 541-568.