Skip to main content
Log in

A differential game in three dimensions: The aerial dogfight scenario

  • Published:
Dynamics and Control

Abstract

In this article, an aerial dogfight in three dimensions between two aircraft was modeled, with each aircraft having combined qualitative objectives of capture with avoidance. A spherical polar-coordinate system was devised to describe the system. From a standard point-mass model of aircraft dynamics for three-dimensional flight, a kinematic model was derived, with its corresponding controls for each aircraft. This kinematic model was then used, assuming bang-bang control functions for each aircraft, in order to determine a map of the game. A technique of trajectory dissection was introduced, whereby the airplane loci were decomposed in terms of regions of zero-level and saturation-level control values, and controllable and winning regions were determined for each aircraft using a Liapunov-function approach, the winning regions being calculated using the Getz-Leitmann theorem. A map of the game was constructed, and the barrier was found to be nonvoid. The concept of the posthumous mutual-kill strategy was introduced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M.D. Ardema, M. Heymann, and N. Rajan, “Combat games,”JOTA, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 391–398, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Heymann, M.D. Ardema, and N. Rajan, “A formulation and analysis of combat games,” NASA TP2487, vol. 54, no. 1, June 1985.

  3. A.E. Bryson, M.N. Desai, and W.C. Hoffman, “Eneregy-state approximation in performance optimization of supersonic aircraft,”J. aircraft, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 481–488, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W.Y. Peng, and T.L. Vincent, “Some aspects of aerial combat,”AIAA J., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 7–11, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  5. C. Hillberg, and B. Järmark, “Pursuit-evasion between two realistic aircraft,”J. Guidance, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 690–694, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  6. H.J. Kelley, and L. Lefton, “Supersonic aircraft energy turns,”Automatica, vol. 8, pp. 575–580, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  7. H.J. Kelley, and L. Lefton, “Differential turns,”AIAA J., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 858–861, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H.J. Kelley, “A threat-reciprocity concept for pursuit-evasion,” IFAC Differential Games Conference, June 7–10, 1976.

  9. A.W. Mertz, “To pursue or to evade—that is the question,”J. Guidance, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 161–166, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  10. N. Rajan, and M.D. Ardema, “Interception in three dimensions: an energy formulation,J. Guidance, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 23–30, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.V. Breakwell, “Pursuit of a faster evader,” Int. Conf. Differential Games, Warwick, 1974, pp. 243–256.

  12. J.M. Skowronski, “Winning controllers for nonlinear air combat game with reduced dynamics,” Proc, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Minneapolis, 1988, pp. 866–873.

  13. M. Falco, and H.J. Kelley, “Aircraft symmetric flight optimization,”Control Dymnamic Syst., vol. 10, pp. 89–129, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Shinar, A. Merari, D. Blank, and E.M. Medinah, “Analysis of aerial turning maneuvers in the vertical plane,”J. Guidance Control, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 69–77, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J.M. Skowronski, and R.J. Stonier, “The barrier in a pursuit-evasion game with two targets,”Comput. Math. Applic., vol. 13, no. 1-3, pp. 37–45, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. W.M. Getz, and G. Leitmann, “Qualitative differential games with two targets,”J. Math. Anal. Applic., vol. 68, pp. 421–430, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J.M. Skowronski, and R.J. Stonier, “A map of a two person qualitative differential game,” Proc. AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Monterey, 1987, pp. 56–64.

  18. M.D. Ardema, M. Heymann, and N. Rajan, “Analysis of a combat problem: the turret game,”JOTA, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 23–42, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  19. C.R. Hargraves, and S.W. Paris, “Direct trajectory optimization using non-linear programming and collocation,”J. Guidance, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 338–342, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  20. H. Ikawa, “A unified three-dimensional trajectory simulation methodology,”J. Guidance, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 650–656, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. Isaacs,Differential Games. Wiley: New York, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J.M. Skowronski, and R.J. Stonier, “Two-person qualitative differential games with two objectives,”Comput. Math. Applic., vol. 18, no. 1-3, pp. 133–150, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  23. B. Etkin,Dynamics of Flight-Stability and Control, Wiley: New York, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  24. P.K.A. Menon, “Short range nonlinear feedback strategies for aircraft pursuit-evasion,”J. Guidance, Control, Dynamics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 27–32, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  25. A. Davidovits, and J. Shinar, “Eccentric two-target model for qualitative air combat game analysis,”J. Guidance, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 325–331, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  26. P.K.A. Menon, and E.L. Duke, “Time-optimal aircraft pursuit-evasion with a weapon-envelope constraint,” Proc. the 1990 American Control Conference, San Diego, May 1990, pp. 2337–2342.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Editor: M. Ardema

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greenwood, N. A differential game in three dimensions: The aerial dogfight scenario. Dynamics and Control 2, 161–200 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02169496

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02169496

Keywords

Navigation