2020
DOI: 10.2514/1.g005063
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact-Time-Control Guidance Strategy with a Composite Structure Considering the Seeker’s Field-of-View Constraint

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

1
42
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
1
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For interception of moving target with constraint on terminal impact angle and look ahead angle, guidance law which generates guidance command proportional to the product of LOS rate and LOS angle, is proposed by Vairavan and Ratnoo (2017). Furthermore, there are proportional guidance laws with composite structure considering the seeker’s FOV constraint for intercepting non-maneuvering and fast-moving target (Lee and Kim, 2020; Lee et al, 2019), and guidance laws with impact time comtrol (Lee et al, 2020). Optimal control theory is also employed to solve problem of FOV limit.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For interception of moving target with constraint on terminal impact angle and look ahead angle, guidance law which generates guidance command proportional to the product of LOS rate and LOS angle, is proposed by Vairavan and Ratnoo (2017). Furthermore, there are proportional guidance laws with composite structure considering the seeker’s FOV constraint for intercepting non-maneuvering and fast-moving target (Lee and Kim, 2020; Lee et al, 2019), and guidance laws with impact time comtrol (Lee et al, 2020). Optimal control theory is also employed to solve problem of FOV limit.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in the above studies (Lee and Kim, 2020; Lee et al, 2013; Lee et al, 2019; Lee et al, 2020; Park et al, 2013; Ratnoo, 2016; Sang and Tahk, 2009; Shaferman, 2017; Vairavan and Ratnoo, 2017; Wang et al, 2016; Yang et al, 2016; Zhang et al, 2016), the limited FOV angle is simplified as the angle between the velocity direction of the missile and the LOS of missile and target by neglecting missile’s attitude dynamics and assuming the AOA of the missile is very small. For the missiles of the atmosphere, we know the AOA is usually the main factor driving the attitude motion and the trajectory motion of missile (Qi, 2004; Zhao et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under this guidance law, the seeker's look angle monotonically converges to 0 from the initial value. The authors of [18] divide the guidance process into two phases. In the first phase, the lead angle remains unchanged, and in the second phase, the missile is governed by the PNG law.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [19,20], the guidance process is also divided into two stages, and in the first stage, the lead angle remains unchanged. Different from [18], in the second stage, a new guidance law is designed to replace the PNG law, and the time-to-go of this guidance law can also be solved analytically. Therefore, the impact time can also be controlled by selecting the appropriate switching point, and the FOV constraint is not violated.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the design and analysis in [1,10] incorporate an approximate estimate for the time-to-go of the pure proportional navigation guidance law (PPNG) which arbitrarily assumes small lead angle. To complement the theoretical and numerical issues arising from the inaccurate time-to-go, another guidance method was proposed in [12] by using the exact time-to-go of PPNG derived in [15], but this method requires switching between policies. In summary, a method based on the PPNG with its exact time-to-go for arrival time control under look angle constraint is still absent despite a lot of previous efforts.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%