Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T04:10:53.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Co-operative 3D salvo attack of multiple missiles under switching topologies subject to time-varying communication delays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2019

X.L. Ai Open the ORCID record for X.L. Ai [Opens in a new window] ,
L.L. Wang  and
Y.C. Shen
X.L. Ai*
Affiliation:
Center for Systems and Control, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China
L.L. Wang
Affiliation:
Beijing Institute of Space Long March Vehicle, Beijing, China
Y.C. Shen
Affiliation:
Beijing Institute of Electronic System Engineering, Beijing, China
*
*bitaixiaolin@163.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study focuses on the co-operative salvo attack problem of multiple missiles against a stationary target under jointly connected switching topologies subject to time-varying communication delays. By carefully exploring certain features of the typical pure proportional navigation guidance law, a two-stage distributed guidance scheme is proposed without any information on time-to-go in this study to realise the simultaneous attack of multiple missiles. In the first guidance stage, a co-operative guidance law is proposed using local neighbouring communications only to achieve consensus on range-to-go and heading error to provide favourable initial conditions for the latter phase, in which switching topologies and time-varying communication delays are taken into account when obtaining sufficient conditions of consensus in terms of linear matrix inequalities. Then, missiles disconnect from each other and are guided individually by the typical pure proportional navigation guidance law with the same navigation gain to realise salvo attack in the second guidance phase. Finally, numerical simulations are carried out to clearly validate the theoretical results.

Keywords

3D salvo attackTime-varying communication delaysJointly connected topologiesMulti-missile systemsTwo-stage guidance

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1262 , April 2019 , pp. 464 - 483
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Zarchan, P. Tactical and strategic missile guidance. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012.Google Scholar
2. Murtaugh, S. and Criel, H. Fundamentals of proportional navigation, IEEE Spectrum, 1996, 3, (12), pp 75–85.Google Scholar
3. Lu, P., Doman, D. and Schierman, J. Adaptive terminal guidance for hypervelocity impact in specified direction, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2006, 29, (2), pp 269–278.Google Scholar
4. Su, W., Yao, D., Li, K. and Chen, L. A novel biased proportional navigation guidance law for close approach phase, Chinese J Aeronautics, 2016, 29, (1), pp 228–237.Google Scholar
5. Cho, N. and Kim, Y. Modified pure proportional navigation guidance law for impact time control, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 2016, 39, (4), pp 1–21.Google Scholar
6. Jeon, I., Lee, J. and Tahk, M. Impact-time-control guidance law for anti-ship missiles, IEEE Transactions on Systems Technology, 2006, 14, (2), pp 260–266.Google Scholar
7. Lee, J., Jeon, I. and Tahk, M. Guidance law to control impact time and angle, IEEE Transactions on Systems Technology, 2007, 43, (1), pp 301–310.Google Scholar
8. Zhang, Y., Ma, G. and Liu, A. Guidance law with impact time and impact angle constraints, Chinese J Aeronautics, 2013, 26, (4), pp 960–966.Google Scholar
9. Harl, N. and Balakrishnan, S. Impact time and angle guidance with sliding mode control, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2012, 20, (6), pp 1436–1449.Google Scholar
10. Zhang, Y., Wang, X. and Wu, H. Impact time control guidance law with field of view constraint, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2014, 39, pp 361–369.Google Scholar
11. Wang, X., Zheng, Y. and Lin, H. Integrated guidance and control law for simultaneous attack of multiple missiles, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2015, 42, pp 1–11.Google Scholar
12. Jeon, I., Lee, J. and Tahk, M. Homing guidance law for simultaneous attack of multiple missiles, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2010, 33, (1), pp 275–280.Google Scholar
13. Harrison, G. Hybrid guidance law for approach angle and time-of-arrive control, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2012, 35, (4), pp 1104–1114.Google Scholar
14. Zhao, J. and Zhou, R. Unified approach to cooperative guidance laws against stationary and maneuvering targets, Nonlinear Dynamics, 2015, 81, (4), pp 1635–1647.Google Scholar
15. Zhao, J., Zhou, R. and Dong, Z. Three-dimensional cooperative guidance laws against stationary and maneuvering targets, Chinese J Aeronautics, 2015, 28, (4), pp 1104–1120.Google Scholar
16. Hou, D., Wang, Q., Sun, X. and Dong, C. Finite-time cooperative guidance laws for multiple missiles with acceleration saturation constraints, IET Control Theory & Applications, 2015, 9, (19), pp 1525–1535.Google Scholar
17. Zhou, J. and Yang, J. Distributed guidance law design for cooperative simultaneous attacks with multiple missiles, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2016, 39, (10), pp 2436–2444.Google Scholar
18. Dhananjay, N. and Ghose, D. Accurate time-to-go estimation for proportional navigation guidance, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2014, 37, (4), pp 1378–1383.Google Scholar
19. Wang, Y., Dong, S., Pu, L. and Liu, L. Cooperative control of multiple-missile systems, IET Control Theory & Applications, 2014, 9, (3), pp 441–446.Google Scholar
20. He, S., Wang, W., Lin, D. and Lei, H. Consensus-based two-stage salvo attack guidance, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2018, 54, (3), pp 1555–1566.Google Scholar
21. Zhang, Y., Wang, X. and Wu, H. A distributed cooperative guidance law for salvo attack of multiple anti-ship missiles, Chinese J Aeronautics, 2015, 28, (5), pp 1438–1450.Google Scholar
22. Wang, X., Zhang, Y. and Wu, H. Distributed cooperative guidance of multiple anti-ship missiles with arbitrary impact angle constraint, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2015, 46, pp 299–311.Google Scholar
23. Zhao, Q., Dong, X., Liang, Z., Bai, C., Chen, J. and Ren, Z. Distributed cooperative guidance for multiple missiles with fixed and switching communication topologies, Chinese J Aeronautics, 2017, 30, (4), pp 1570–1581.Google Scholar
24. Zhao, Q., Dong, X., Liang, Z. and Ren, Z. Distributed group cooperative guidance for multiple missiles with fixed and switching directed communication topologies, Nonlinear Dynamics, 2017, 90, pp 2507–2523.Google Scholar
25. He, S., King, M., Song, T. and Lin, D. Three-dimensional salvo attack guidance considering communication delay, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2018, 73, pp 1–9.Google Scholar
26. Ratnoo, A. Analysis of two-stage proportional navigation with heading constraints, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2016, 39, (1), pp 156–164.Google Scholar
27. Zhao, J. and Zhou, R. Distributed three-dimensional cooperative guidance via receding horizon control, Chinese J Aeronautics, 2016, 29, (4), pp 972–983.Google Scholar
28. Song, S. and Ha, I. A Lyapunov-like approach to performance analysis of 3-dimensional pure PNG law, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace & Electronics Systems, 1994, 30, (1), pp 238–248.Google Scholar
29. Lin, Z., Francis, B. and Maggiore, M. Necessary and sufficient graphical conditions for formation control of unicycles, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2005, 50, (1), pp 121–127.Google Scholar
30. Ni, W. and Cheng, D. Leader-following consensus of multi-agent systems under fixed and switching topologies, Systems & Control Letters, 2010, 59, pp 209–217.Google Scholar
31. Wei, Y. and Lin, Z. Delay independent truncated predictor feedback for stabilization of linear systems with multiple time-varying input delays. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, 2017, pp 5732–5737.Google Scholar