A New Collision Control Guidance Law Based on Speed Control for Kill Vehicles

  • Young-Sook Jung
  • Jin-Ik Lee
  • Chang-Hun Lee
  • Min-Jea TahkEmail author
Original Paper


In this paper, a new guidance law for intercepting ballistic missiles at high altitude is proposed. The proposed guidance method, called collision control guidance, unlike the conventional guidance method which controls the collision triangle by adjusting the flight-path angle, achieves a collision triangle by controlling the interceptor speed. In the proposed method, a new impact point (or collision triangle) is first determined that automatically nullifies a given initial heading angle error without changing the flight-path angle. Speed control is followed until a particular time in order to reach the new impact point. In this paper, the control effectiveness and the fuel consumption of the proposed method are analyzed to provide better insight into the proposed method. It turns out that compared to existing methods the proposed method can save fuel when intercepting a high-speed target. Numerical simulations confirm the performance of the proposed method.


Collision control guidance (CCG) Speed control Fuel optimization 



This work was conducted at High-Speed Vehicle Research Center of KAIST with the support of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and Agency for Defense Development. (Contract number: UD170018CD).


  1. 1.
    Garwin RL (1999) Technical aspect of ballistic missile defense. APS Forum Phys Soc 28(3):2–3Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Global security. Kinetic energy hit-to-kill warhead. Accessed 21 July 2011
  3. 3.
    Hablani H (2000) Pulsed guidance of exoatmospheric interceptors with image processing delays in angle measurements. In: 18th applied aerodynamics conference, 2000, p 4272Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pue AJ, Hildebrand RJ, Clemens DE (2014) Missile concept optimization of ballistic missile defense. Johns Hopkins APL Tech Dig 32(5):775–786Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    He Y, Qiu Y (2003) THAAD-like high altitude theater missile defense: strategic defense capability and certain countermeasures analysis. Sci Glob Secur 11(2–3):151–202Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryson A, Ho YC (1975) Applied optimal control. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cloutier JR, Evers JH, Feeley JJ (1989) Assessment of air-to-air missile guidance and control technology. IEEE Control Syst Mag 9(6):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murtaugh SA, Criel HE (1966) Fundamentals of proportional navigation. IEEE Spectr 3(12):75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zarchan P (2012) Tactical and strategic missile guidance, 6th edn. AIAA, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kreindler E (1973) Optimality of proportional navigation. AIAA J 11(6):878–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim BS, Lee JG, Han HS (1988) Biased PNG law for impact with angular constraint. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 34(1):277–288Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ben-Asher JZ, Farber N, Levinson S (2003) New proportional navigation law for ground-to-air system. J Guid Control Dyn 26(5):822–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pastrick HL, York RJ (1980) Optimal control for an air defense interceptor: part I. CH1558-6/80/0000-0229, IEEE 1980Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Idan M, Golan O, Guelman M (1995) Optimal planar interception with terminal constraints. J Guid Control Dyn 18(6):1273–1279CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaferman V, Shima T (2008) Linear quadratic guidance laws for imposing a terminal intercept angle. J Guid Control Dyn 31(5):1400–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reisner D, Shima T (2013) Optimal guidance-to-collision law for an accelerating exoatmospheric interceptor missile. J Guid Control Dyn 36(6):1695–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bezick S, Rusnak I, Gray WS (1995) Guidance of a homing missile via nonlinear geometric control method. J Guid Control Dyn 18(3):441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Menon PK, Sweriduk GD, Ohlmeyer EJ (2003) Optimal fixed-interval integrated guidance-control law for hit-to-kill missiles. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference and exhibit, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang CD, Chen HY (1998) Nonlinear H robust guidance law for homing missiles. J Guid Control Dyn 21(6):882–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Talole SE, Banavar RN (1998) Proportional navigation through predictive control. J Guid Control Dyn 21(6):1004–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Babu KR, Sarma IG, Swamy KN (1994) Switched bias proportional navigation for homing guidance against highly maneuvering target. J Guid Control Dyn 17(6):1357–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shtessel YB, Shkolnikov IA, Levant A (2007) Smooth second-order sliding modes: missile guidance application. Automatica 43(8):1470–1476MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gazit R, Cutman S (1991) Development of guidance laws for a variable-speed missile. Dyn Control 1(2):177–198MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Philips HE (1999) PAC-3 missile seeker tests succeed. Aviat Week Space Technol 150(12):30Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hughes D (1997) Next arrow test this summer after scoring direct hit. Aviat Week Space Technol 146(12):34Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gazit R (1993) Guidance to collision of a variable-speed missile. In: The first IEEE regional conference on aerospace control systems, 1993, pp 734–737Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kirk DE (1970) Optimal control theory an introduction. Prenice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, pp 173–260Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Young-Sook Jung
    • 1
  • Jin-Ik Lee
    • 2
  • Chang-Hun Lee
    • 1
  • Min-Jea Tahk
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)DaejeonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Agency for Defense Development (ADD), YuseongDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations