Composite Guidance Scheme for Impact Angle Control Against a Nonmaneuvering Moving Target

Park, Bong-Gyun; Kwon, Hye Won; Kim, Yoon-Hwan; Kim, Tae-Hun

doi:10.2514/1.g001547

Cited by 44 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Figure 6(a), it is obvious that the trajectories of BPN and [28] appear more curved than the proposed one. For the terminal impact constraint, all the methods can satisfy the demand as shown in Figure 6(b).…”

Section: Simulations Of Constant Velocity Missilementioning

confidence: 91%

“…Case 2 (comparative cases with other guidance laws). The performance of the proposed guidance scheme, which is illustrated in Figure 6 with the impact angle constraint of γ M f = −90°, is compared to the BPN guidance law in [10] and a two-phased guidance scheme described in [28]. The implemented acceleration in [28] is summarized as Figure 3: Switching logic of the guidance.…”

Section: Simulations Of Constant Velocity Missilementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, since most of these works dealt with stationary targets, the desired impact angle may not be achieved against moving targets when applying these works to homing missiles. A composite guidance scheme was presented considering the case of a nonmaneuvering moving target, which was composed of modified deviated pure pursuit (DPP) with error feedback loop of look angle for initial guidance phases and PN with N ≥ 3 for final guidance phases [28]. Park et al [29] addressed the similar guidance problem and strategy in [28] and extended to consider the command limit.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The minimum value of this scaling factor is chosen to reduce the abrupt acceleration change at switching instant. Therefore, the specific navigation gain values for both two guidance phases can be calculated according to the scaling factor and the desired impact angle, which is different from [23,28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2) Two propositions are presented to prove the monotonicity of the line-of-sight angle and look angle. The switching of guidance phases occurs when a specific LOS angle similar to [28] is satisfied. However, the look angle reaches the FOV limit only at the switching instant, which reduces the required load in initial guidance phase compared with [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Two-Phased Guidance Law for Impact Angle Control with Seeker’s Field-of-View Limit

Zhang

Tang

Guo

et al. 2018

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A two-phased guidance problem with terminal impact angle constraints and seeker’s field-of-view limit is addressed in this paper for a missile against a nonmaneuvering incoming target. From the conventional PN guidance without any constraints, it is found that satisfying the impact angle constraint causes a more curved missile trajectory requiring a large look angle. To avoid the look angle exceeding the seeker’s physical limit, a two-phased look angle control guidance scheme with the terminal constraint is introduced. The PN-typed guidance law is designed for each guidance phase with a specific switching condition of line-of-sight. The proposed guidance law is comprised of two types of acceleration commands: the one in the initial phase which aims at controlling the missile’s look angle to reach the limit and the other for final phase which is produced by switching the navigation gain. The monotonicity of the line-of-sight angle and look angle is analyzed and proved to support the proposed method. To evaluate the specific navigation gains for both initial and final phases, the scaling coefficient between them is discussed by solving a quadratic equation with respect to the initial navigation gain. To avoid a great abrupt acceleration change at the switching instant, a minimum coefficient is chosen. Extensive simulations are performed to validate the efficiency of the proposed approach.

show abstract

Section: Simulations Of Constant Velocity Missilementioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Simulations Of Constant Velocity Missilementioning

confidence: 99%