Advertisement

Games in Aerospace: Homing Missile Guidance

  • Joseph Z. Ben-Asher
  • Jason L. Speyer
Reference work entry

Abstract

The development of a homing missile guidance law against an intelligent adversary requires the solution to a differential game. First, we formulate the deterministic homing guidance problem as a linear dynamic system with an indefinite quadratic performance criterion (LQ). This formulation allows the navigation ratio to be greater than three, which is obtained by the one-sided linear-quadratic regulator and appears to be more realistic. However, this formulation does not allow for saturation in the actuators. A deterministic game allowing saturation is formulated and shown to be superior to the LQ guidance law, even though there is no control penalty. To improve the performance of the quadratic differential game solution in the presence of saturation, trajectory-shaping feature is added. Finally, if there are uncertainties in the measurements and process noise, a disturbance attenuation function is formulated that is converted into a differential game. Since only the terminal state enters the cost criterion, the resulting estimator is a Kalman filter, but the guidance gains are a function of the assumed system variances.

Keywords

Pursuit-evasion games Homing missile guidance Disturbance attenuation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Maya Dobrovinsky from Elbit Systems for converting part of this document from Word to LATE X.

References

  1. Basar T, Bernhard P (1995) H optimal control and related minimax design problems: a dynamic game approach, 1st edn. Birkhäuser, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Asher JZ, Yaesh I (1998) Advances in missile guidance theory, vol 180. Progress in astronautics and aeronautics. AIAA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Asher JZ, Shinar Y, Wiess H, Levinson S (2004) Trajectory shaping in linear-quadratic pursuit-evasion games. AIAA J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics 27(6):1102–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryson AE, Ho YC (1975) Applied optimal control. Hemisphere, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Gutman S (1979) On optimal guidance for homing missiles. AIAA J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics 3(4):296–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Nesline WN, Zarchan P (1981) A new look at classical vs. modern homing missile guidance. AIAA J. Guidance, Control and Dynamics 4(1):878–880Google Scholar
  7. Rhee I, Speyer JL (1991) Game theoretic approach to a finite-time disturbance attenuation problem. IEEE Trans Autom Control 36(9):1021–1032MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Shinar J (1981) In: Leondes CT (ed) Automatic control systems, vol 17, 8th edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Shinar J (1989) On new concepts effecting guidance law synthesis of future interceptor missiles. In: AIAA CP 89-3589, guidance, navigation and control conference, Boston. AIAAGoogle Scholar
  10. Speyer JL (1976) An adaptive terminal guidance scheme based on an exponential cost criterion with application to homing missile guidance. IEEE Trans Autom Control 48:371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Speyer JL, Chung WH (2008) Stochastic processes, estimation, and control, 1st edn. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Speyer JL, Jacobson DH (2010) Primer on optimal control theory, 1st edn. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zarchan P (1997) Tactical and strategic missile guidance, progress in astronautics and aeronautics. AIAA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aerospace EngineeringTechnion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations