Modem Navigation,

Guidance, and
Control Processing
b y Ching-Fang L i n

Modeling, Design, Analysis, Simulation, and Evaluation ( M D A S E )

Modern Navigation, Guidance, and Control Processing
Advanced Control Systems Design
Integrated, Adaptive, and Intelligent Navigation, Guidance, and Control Systems Design
Digital Navigation, Guidance, and Control Systems Design
Modem Navigation,
Guidance, and
Control Processing

Ching-Fang Lin
American Gh'C Corporation

gig Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

 L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s Catalo~lng-ln-Publlcatlon D a t a

Lln. Chlng-Fang.
M o d e r n n a v l g a t l o n , guldance. and c o n t r o l processing / by C h l n g
-Fang Lln.
p. CI. -- ( S e r l e s In a d v a n c e d n a v l g a t l o n , guldance. a n d
c o n t ~ o l . a n d t h e l r a p p l l c a t l o n s : b k . 2)
I n c l u d e s b l b l l o g r a p h t c a l r e f e r e n c e s and index.
I S B N 0-13-596230-7
1. F l l g h t c o n t r o l . 2. G u i d e d ntsslles--Control s y s t e m s .
I. T l t l e . 11. S e r l e s .
TL589.4.L55 1991
629.1--0C20 90-43009
CIP

Editoriallproduction supervision
and interior design: Brendan M . Stewart
Cover design: Bruce Kenselaar
Manufacturing buyers: Kelly Behr and Susan Brunke
Acquisitions editors: Bernard Goodwin and Michael Hays

O 1991 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.

A Simpn & Schuster Company
Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey 07632

Thii book can be made available to businesses and

organizations at a special discount when ordered in large
quantities. For more information, please eontad: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Special Sales and Markets, College Division,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

All rights reserved. N o part of this book may be

reproduced, in any form or by any means,
without permission in writing from the publisher

Printed in the United States of America

1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN 0-13-59b230-7

Prenticc-Hall International (UK) Limited, Lotidon

Prentice-Hall of Australia Pty. Limited, Sydney
Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., Toronto
Prenticc-Hall Hispanoamericana. S.A.. Mexico
Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, ,Vru, Drlhi
Prentice-Ha11 ofJapan. Inc.. Tokyo
Simon & Schuster Asia Pte. Ltd.. Singapore
Editora Prenticc-Hall do Brasil. Ltda.. Rio de Jatreiro
 To my family
for their love, understanding,
and support throtrghout.
 Contents
Series Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview, 1
1.2 Outline/Scope, 8

2 Modeling-Design-Analysis-Simulation-
Evaluation (MDASE) of NGC
Processing
2.1 LinearlNonlinear Intercept NGC
System, 13
2.1.1 LinearlNonlinear Intercept N G C
Processing, 14
 Contents

2.1.2 Modeling and Simulation, 18

2.1.3 Guidance System Classification, 21
2.1.4 Flight Control System (FCS) and FCS
Sensing, 22
2.2 Target Signal Processing, 23
2.2.1 Targeting, 30
2.2.2 Kinematic/Relative Geometry, 34
2.2.3 Targeting Sensor Dynamics, 37
2.3 N G C System Design and Analysis, 45
2.3.1 Guidance Filtering/Processing, 45
2.3.2 N G C Stability and Pevfovmance
Analysis, 52
2.4 Target Tracking State Modeling, 68
2.4.1 Target Noise and Target Maneuver
Modeling, 68
2.4.2 Two-Dimensional Target Tracking
State Modeling, 72
2.4.3 Three-Dimensional lntercept State
Modeling, 74

3 Modem Multivariable Control Analysis

Singular Value Analysis, 78
Sensitivity and Complementary Sensitivity
Functions, 82
Design Requirements, 84
Structured Singular Value, 86
General Robustness Analysis, 89
Robustness of Real Perturbations, 90
3.6.1 State-Space Model for Additive
Uncertainty, 91
3.6.2 Slate-Spare Sing~rlarI/allres, 92
3.6.3 Root Loctrs, 92
3.6.4 A Monte Carlo Comnputation, 94
3.6.5 A Monte Carlo Analysis.for Second-
Order Systetns, 95
3.6.6 Stability Margin Comttp~rtatiot~,
98
Monte Carlo Analysis, 100
Covariance Analysis, 102
Adjoint Method, 106
3.9.1 Adjoint P/~ilosophy,106
3.9.2 Applications, 108
 Contents

3.10 Statistical Lzncarization, 11 1

3.10.1 l'c~clrtriq~rc~sand Tools for Statistical
L~trcartzation, 116
3.10.2 Statistical Litlearization with Adjoint
hlrtlrod, 1 18
3.10.3 Applicatiot~s, 120
3.11 Qualitativc Comparison, 121
3.12 Other l'erformancc Analysts, 124

4 Modern Filtering and Estimation

Techniques
4.1 Linear Minimum Variance Estimation:
Kalman Filter, 128
4.1.1 Discrete Kalman Filter, 129
4.1.2 Contirl~rortsKalmatr Filter, 129
4.2 Nonlinear Filtering, 133
4.2.1 Estetrded Kalmaw Filter (EKF), 133
4.2.2 Sratisrical Lit~earization
Teclzrtiqrre, 135
4.2.3 ~tfrrltipleModel Estirnadon, 137
4.3 Prediction and Smoothing, 138
4.3.1 Prediction, 139
4.3.2 Strroothirrg, 140
4 Kalman Filter Design and Performance
Analysis, 140
4.4.1 Kalrnar~Filter Desigtl Process, 142
4.4.2 Selectiort of Noise Itltensity
Matrices, 142
4.4.3 Error Analysis, 146
4.5 Operational Considerations, 148
4.5.1 Filter Pevfarmance, 149
4.5.2 Computational Reqtrirements, 149
4.5.3 Absence o f A Priori Information, 153
4.5.4 Filter Divergence, 153
4.5.5 &lodeling Process Noise and
Biases, 156
4.6 Combined Complementary/Kalman Filter
Approach to Estimator Design, 158
4.6.1 First-Order Complert~entary/Kalman
Filter, 158
4.6.2 Second-Order Complementary/Kalman
Filter, 163
4.6.3 Third-Order Complernentary/Kalman
Filter, 170
 Contents

5 Inertial Navigation 176

5.1 Introduction, 176
5.2 Common Requirements for Inertial
Navigators, 181
5.3 Navigation Computation and Error
Modeling, 184
5.3.1 Coordinate Systems, 184
5.3.2 Position and Velocity Generation, 186
5.3.3 Data Processing, 188
5.3.4 IA'S Error Analysis and
Modeling, 188
5.4 Gimballed Inertial Navigation System
(INS), 192
5.4.1 Ginzbal Mechanism, 192
'5.4.2 Iitertial Setisors on the Stable
PlatJorrn, 193
5.4.3 Plarfornt Aligrlriient Modes, 193
5.4.4 nhvigatioit Mode, 194
5.4.5 Systein Ititernal arid External
Integaces, 195
5.4.6 Navigatioii Mechanizatiorz and Error
Model, 195
5.5 Strapdown Inertial Navigation System
(INS), 199
5.5.1 Generalized Strapdowti
Mechai~izatiori, 199
5.5.2 Strapdouwi Navixatiori ~ o r n ~ u t e 201r,
5.5.3 Strapdown Coniputer
Requireineiits, 201
5.5.4 Strapdowrl Error Model and
Attalysis, 204
5.5.5 Operation Flow Diagram, 208
5.6 Comparison and Analysis of Gimbal Versus
Strapdown, 209
5.6.1 Fcatitrc Coiiiparisoii, 209
5.6.2 h'ai~igatiori Errors Cori~parisoil,209
5.7 External Navigation Aids, 213
5.7.1 Aided liierti~l,Vavkatioir
Meckatiizatior?, 213
5.7.2 Global Positioi~iiigSysterri ( G P S ) , 215
5.7.3 Tactical A i r hlavigatiorl
( T A C A N ) , 277
5.7.4 L o r ~ gRange Navigation
( L O R A N ) , 220
 Contents

5.7.5 Terrain Contour Matching

(TEHCO.M), 220
5.7.6 Doppler Radar, 225
5.7.7 Star Trackers, 225
5.7.8 Kaln~anFiltering, 226
5.7.9 Kaltnon Filtering Performance, 228
5.8 Integrated Inertial Navigation System
(IINS). 229
5.8.1 I t ~ t e ~ ~ r a rSensittcq/Flight
ed Control
Reference Systrtn (ISFCRS), 231
5.8.2 it~te~qrated Sensory Subsystetn
( I S S ) , 231
5.8.3 Itltecqrared Inertial Sensing Assembly
( I I S A ) , 232
5.8.4 Helicopter Integrated Inertial
h'avigation Systern (HIINS), 241
5.8.5 integrated Missile Guidance
Systerns, 245

6 Guidance Processing
6.1 Guidance Processors, 252
6.2 Guidance Mission and Performance, 268
6.2.1 Guidance Pevformance, 269
6.2.2 Pltases of Flight, 279
6.2.3 Operation, 280
6.3 Multiple Mode Guidance Modeling, 298
6.3.1 M~dcourseGuidance, 298
6.3.2 Terminal Guidance, 302
6.3.3 Error Analysis Model
Development, 308
6.4 Guidance Algorithm, 310
6.4.1 Preset Guidance, 310
6.4.2 Direct Guidance Methods, 312
6.5 Guidance Law, 347
6.5.1 LOS An3le Guidance, 348
6.5.2 LOS Rate Guidance, 348
6.5.3 Sensitivity and Cornparison of
G~ridarrceLaws, 373
6.6 Single-Mode, Dual-Mode, and Multimode
Guidance, 379
6.6.1 Single-Mode Guidance, 379
6.6.2 Dual-Mode Guidance, 380
6.6.3 Multitnode Guidance Applications, 384
 Contents

6.7 Defense and Offense Systems, 392

6.7.1 Performance Paratneters, 392
6.7.2 Low-Altitude Air Defense
Systems, 397
6.8 Future Guidance Processing, 404
6.8.1 Areas for Teclztiological Advartces in
Signal Processitig, 405
6.8.2 Future Signal Processing for Missile
Guidatlce, 407

7 Navigation and Guidance Filtering

Design

7.1 Target State Estimation, 414

7.1.1 Target Tracking Filter Suiizmary, 416
7.1.2 The Wiener Filter, 420
7.1.3 Kalmatl Filter, 420
7.1.4 The Sitiiplified Kalnlari Filter, 420
7.1.5 Alpha-Beta-Canima Filter, 421
7.1.6 Modified Maxitn~rm-Likelihood
Filter, 424
7.1.7 Two-Point Extrapolator, 425
7.1.8 Coriiparisori of Targct Trackirrg
Filters, 425
7.2 Practical Navigation and Guidance Filtcr
Design, 427
7.2.1 Guidance Tracking Filtcr, 427
7.2.2 Navigation and Guidance Filteringfor
Position Estiriiatc, 430
7.2.3 Navigatiorr arid Cuidatice Filteritlgfor
Position and Velocity Estitilate, 431
7.2.4 Navigation atrd Cuidarrcc Filterit~gfor
Position, I/clociry, and Accrleratiot~
Estiriiatc, 434
7.2.5 Advatrccd Guidance Filter, 440
7.3 Radar Tracking, 442
7.4 Spacccraft Attitudc Estimation, 444
7.5 Advanccd Navigation System Design, 445
7.5.1 Global Positioning Systetir (GPS)
Acc~rracyItnpro~~etttcrit,445
7.q.2 Integrated CPSIIR'S, 457
 Contents

8 Advanced Guidance System Design

8.1 Advanced Guidancc Laws, 468

8.1.1 O~itirttnlCrridatrce Law Survey, 469
8.1.2 Atrnlyticnl Solrrtiotr of Optirnal Filters
and Optitnal G~ridatrceLaw, 474
8.2 Complenicntary/Kalman Filtered
Proportional Navigation: Biased PNG and
Complcmcntary I'NG, 481
8.2.1 Corttliitted Seeker-Czridatrce Filtering it1
a Cottrplettret~taryFilter, 483
8.2.2 Biased PAYC ( B P N G ) Algorithm, 486
8.2.3 Cort~plettret~tary PNG (CPNG)
Alyoritl~trr, 492
8.2.4 Terrtr inal G~ridatlceSystem
Analysis, 501
8.3 Other Terminal Guidance Laws, 510
8.4 Radome Error Calibration and
Compensation, 517
8.4.1 Radorne Error Cotnpensntion, 51 7
8.4.2 Gtridowce Perforrnat~ceAnalysis with
In-Fl!qht Radotne Error
Calibratiotr, 520
8.4.3 Des[gtt Equations for P N C with
Parasitic Feedback, 528
8.5 Command Versus Semiactive Homing
Guidance System Design and Analysis, 544
8.5.1 Modeling, 544
8.5.2 Miss-Distance Analysis for Command
Guidance, 550
8.5.3 Analysis of Optimal Command
Ccridance Versus Optimal Semiactive
Homirlg C~ridance,557
8.6 Analytical S o l ~ ~ t i oonf Optimal Trajectory
Shaping for Combined Midcourse and
Terminal Guidance, 562
8.6.1 Optitnal Trajectory Sllaping
Guidance, 562
8.6.2 Problem Formulation, 563
8.6.3 Attalytic Optimal Gtridance Law, 566
8.6.4 Real-Time lmplemetztation and
Pevformance, 578
8.6.5 Discussiotls, 583
 Series Foreword
The role played by modern navigation, guidance, and control (NGC) in the de-
velopment and advancement of such areas as commercial and military aviation, to
name only two, has continually expanded since its earliest inception in the 1950's.
As this field began to grow and take on added importance, many books were written
dealing mainly with the theoretical aspects of NGC, but most of these were confined
to the earlier years of N G C development. Currently, although N G C system ap-
plications continue to take on an ever-increasing importance, the availability of
reference books, especially textbooks suitable for graduate level and advanced un-
dergraduate students as well as those who practice in the field, has not kept pace.
This series emphasizing NGC systems and their applications is long overdue; in
fact, it has been 30 years since such a series dealing with N G C systems has been
written and available to the academic and ~rofessionalcommunities. Moreover. it
A

is the first ever such series to thoroughly discuss the advanced control system design
(modern multivariable control analysis; robust control; estimation; adaptive control;
nonlinear control; intelligent control; etc.). It comes at a time when concern over
issues such as the status of education and the decreasing number of trained, qualified
professionals in this country is a t an all-time high. It is against such a background
that the present series was conceived to assess state-of-the-art systems and control
theories, and engineering applications of advanced N G C systems. Another purpose
of the series is to develop future research agenda and at the same time encourage
xuiii Series Foreword

discussions in those areas that do not always find the systems and control community
in complete agreement.
The series provides a comprehensive coverage of the latest N G C technology
as follows. The first book begins by introducing the various applications of N G C
systems, after which it provides a thorough, fundamental treatment of what is con-
sidered the five most important stages in N G C system development: modeling,
design, analysis, simulation, and evaluation (MDASE). The second book in the
series takes up the subject of advanced estimation and guidance systems design, as
well as N G C processing. The third book is concerned with the subject of advanced
control system design, with particular emphasis placed on the topic of flight control
system (FCS) design. The topics that constitute the fourth book include integrated,
adaptive, and intelligent N G C systems design, while the fifth book is devoted com-
pletely to digital N G C systems design. Although most of the material in these five
books is self-contained, there is a natural progression in the series as a whole toward
more advanced topics. For example, much of the material in the second book actually
serves as a prelude to the third, fourth, and fifth books.
These books are the result of several years of experience gained on the part of
the authorleditor both as a professor at the university level and as a practitioner in
the field. It is believed that this series will provide invaluable insight and instruction
to students, mainly at the graduate level but also to advanced urldcrgraduate students,
as well as to those engineers who work directly or indirectly in the field of N G C
system design and applications. In addition, this series is intended to provide both
engineers and managers with the advanced N G C knowledge and concepts necessary
to make correct decisions concerning the best N G C system design in a particular
situation.
 Preface
It is very likely that few people who labor in any scientific discipline are unaware
of the contributions of advanced navigation, guidance, and control (NGC) theory
to aerospace-related programs. It is, however, equally unlikely that many are aware
of the dramatic impact of this field on such diverse areas as medicine, industrial
manufacturing, energy management, and chemical engineering. While its broad
range of applications would at first appear to indicate that advanced N G C theory
is enjoying an immense popularity in scientific and academic settings in general,
this unfortunately turns out not to be the case. It is felt by many experts that many
of those in the aerospace field in particular either are content to rest on the laurels
surrounding the success of NGC theory developed in the 1950's and 1960's or have
become so conservative in their design philosophies as to be unduly apprehensive
about using advanced N G C theory. The latter appears to be especially true in the
area of aviation.
The author is quick to point out, however, that the NGC field itself is some-
what responsible for many of the misperceptions on the part of those w h o are not
convinced of the usefulness of advanced N G C theory. More than a mere shadow
of doubt has been cast on the usefulness of this theory as a result of its having taken
xx Preface

a much too mathematically-oriented turn almost immediately after the theory was
first applied in the solution of practical problems. It is the author's opinion that,
while N G C theorv is built around a rather beautiful framework of mathematics. its
primary emphasis'must nonetheless always bk placed on solving engineering prob-
lems of great practical importance. N G C technology has always been the focal point
of aerospace engineering and automation research and development. A combination
of theoretical concepts, the rapid evolution of computer and microelectronics tech-
nology, and the continued refinement of sensor and actuator technology has con-
tributed to its advances. This book examines the role of modern N G C processing
in the design of advanced N G C systems.
This volume places major emphasis on the practical applications of advanced
NGC systems, treating the subject more from an engineering than a mathematical
perspective. Nevertheless, theoretical and mathematical concepts are introduced and
adequately developed to make the book a self-sufficient source of instruction for
readers. The intent of this book is to enable readers to achieve a level of competence
that will permit their participation in the practical applications of modeling, design,
analysis, simulation, and evaluation (MDASE) to advanced N G C systems. The book
presents basic as well as advanced algorithms. A wide range of examples culled from
various applications are provided to meet the needs of the different levels and types
of readers, extending from issues requiring only a rudimentary knowledge to those
involving avant-garde research. Morever, problems in the text span from those that
concern only N G C to those that are interdisciplinary, and ultimately to those that
encompass the entire systems and control field.
An outline of the topics presented in this book is given in Fig. 1. Following
the Introduction (Chap. I ) , the text is organized according to five principal topics:
MDASE of N G C Processing (Chap. 2), Modern Multivariablc Control Analysis
(Chap. 3), Design Algorithms for Advanced NGC Systems Design (Chap. 4). Fun-
damentals of N G C Processing (Chaps. 5 and 6), and Advanced N G C Systems De-
sign (Chaps. 7 and 8). Each of these is in turn divided into a number of subtopics
that discuss the relevant theories, algorithms, and computing tools related to their
applications in advanced NGC systems. Referring to the outline organizing the five
principal topics covered in this book, only those subtopics that are connected by
solid lines are treated in this book. Those subtopics that are connected by broken
lines are treated specifically in the books referenced under them.
The numerous examples that are included in this book are supplemented by
a liberal use of rcferenccs, thus making it easier for the reader to get access to a
tremendous body of literature it] this field. As noted by one rcvicwer, there are n o
comparable books currently on the market that prcscnt in a usable format such a
complete collection of practical tools that are applicable to real world problems.
Moreover, the organization of thc material coupled with comprchensive examples
make this book well suited to self-teaching, bridging the gap betwccn thc theoretical
and the practical.
 Preface

Introduction

Modeling-Design-Analysis-Simulation-Evaluation
(MDASE) of NGC Processing

I
----- 1
Hodern Multivariable Performance
Control Analysis
-----
rn
Modern Filtering
Advanced Adaptive NGC
1
Knowledge-Based
Design and Estimation Multivariable I Systems: Detection and Neural-Network
for Advanced NGC Techniques Control Design I and Identification Approaches to
Systems Design (Chap. 4) Techniques (Book 4) Systems Control
(Book 4)
- - I- - - - 1
---
1
Fundamentals of Guidance Processing Flight Control
NGC Processing Processing
(Bogk 3)
---
7

Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design

(Chap. 7)
+
Advanced Guidance Systems Design

Design +
Advanced Flight Control System Design
(Book 3)
I

r 7 - - -C - - - 1
Integrated, Adaptive, and Digital NGC Systems Design
Intelligent NGC Systems Design (Book 5)
(Book 4)

Figure 1. Modern Navigation, Guidance, and Control (NGC) Processing

 Acknowledgments
The number of people who have lent assistance in one way or another to this book
is too great to allow me to thank each one individually. 1 am indebted to each person
who has contributed to making this project a success, but I feel that I must ac-
knowledge a few individuals by name for their support and effort during the count-
less hours spent on this project. My first acknowledgement goes out to my staff at
American GNC Corporation (AGNC) who have assisted me as follows: Chun Yang
and Jerry Juang have provided important technical input, while Jim Wright has
spent many hours editing the manuscript. Special thanks are due to Kylie Hsu and
Janet Young for their involvement in designing, planning, coordinating, and pre-
paring the entire manuscript, including word processing and numerous original
pieces of computer and manual artwork. I am also grateful to William R. Yueh for
his technical advice.
Several of my colleagues and friends have provided invaluable technical as-
sistance. I specifically want to acknowledge William H. Gilbert of Martin Marietta
Electronic Systems who, through his ardent support and encouragement of this
project, made this impossible task appear less so at times. I am deeply touched by his
unselfish giving of his time in the overall guidance and input to this project. I am
xxiv Acknowledgments

am also indebted to J. Stanley Ausman of Litton Guidance and Control Systems

Division who has greatly improved the quality of Chapter 5. Dr. Ausman is an
authority on the subject of this chapter and has co-authored a book on Inertial
Guidance (Wiley, 1962). I would also like to thank him for granting me permission
to adopt his lecture notes in Tactical Aircraft Weapon Delivery Systems.
I also want to express my gratitude to Gary Hewer of Naval Weapons Center,
Hsi-Han Yeh of Wright-Patterson Flight Dynamics Lab., and Keqin Gu of Southern
Illinois University for their painstaking effort in reviewing Chapter 3. T. Sen Lee
of MIT Lincoln Lab., is also appreciated for his effort in reviewing Chapters 4
and 5.
A very special note of thanks goes out to Bernard Goodwin, Vice-President,
Professional and Technical Reference Publishing of Prentice Hall, who has taken
on the task of publishing this book and has continued to support enthusiastically
throughout this project. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Michael
Hays, Executive Editor and Assistant Vice-President, Professional and Technical
Reference Publishing of Prentice Hall, for his constructive advice and his special
interest in this project. Also deserving special mention is Brendan Stewart, Pro-
duction Editor of Prentice Hall, for his excellent job throughout the production
process. I am equally obliged to other Prentice Hall personnel who have participated
behind the scenes in the different stages of this book project.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge those individuals and organizations that
have permitted me to reprintladapt portions of their outstanding work in order to
make this book a well-rounded source of information. They include (in alphabetical
order): AACC, AGARD, AIAA, Arthur Gelb of TASC, Frederick W. Hardy of
Hughes Missile Systems Group, Robert J. Heaston of GACIAC, Kaz Hiroshige
formerly of General Dynamics Convair Division, IEEE, Johns Hopkins APL Tcch-
nical Digest, Robert J. Kelly of Allied-Signal Aerospace Co., Litton. James A.
McLean of the U.S. Army Missile Command, Pergamon I'rcss, Rockwell Inter-
national Collins Avionics Division, and SCS International.
Modern Navigation,
Guidance, and
Control Processing
 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of advanced navigation, guidance, and control
(NGC) design. The text is oriented to the applied rather than the theoretical aspects
of the subject matter. Although advanced techniques are discussed, the contents are
presented in such a manner as to also provide a simple and interesting picture of
the central issues underlying both classical and advanced control theory and the
practice of the NGC modeling, design, analysis, simulation, and evaluation
(MDASE) process.

1.1 OVERVIEW

The objective of this book is to provide both engineers and managers with the
advanced NGC knowledge and concepts necessary to make sensible decisions con-
cerning the best NGC system design in a particular situation. It will hopefully serve
as a useful source of information for NGC systems designers by providing them
with ideas for the solutions of current problems and future designs, as well as in-
formation about the problems encountered with microprocessor-based systems, mi-
croelectronics, aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, sensing, actuation, target ac-
quisition, and weapon systems. In an attempt to achieve such an objective, this book
demonstrates practical tools that are realistically applicable in the work area.
2 Introduction Chap. 1

The development and applications of present-day systems and control theory

were spurred on by the challenge of unsolved aerospace problems, especially by the
series of events that has occurred since the late 1950s. Therefore, it is beneficial to
review the development of systems and control theory since that time. The jolting
success of the Soviet Union's satellite technology during that time inspired the
United States to excel in aerospace technology, thus giving birth to an entire new
generation of support for the field of systems and control. This in turn led to success
with regard to solving urgent aerospace problems. The emergence of the Apollo
program in the 1960s restored confidence in systems and control research and pro-
vided opportunities for conceptualized systems and control theories to be trans-
formed into actual practical NGC system designs. Among the more well-established
concepts that found great applicability to solving real engineering/control problems
in the 1960s are the recursive minimum variance estimator, often referred to as the
Kalman-Bucy filter, the LQG technique, the time domain concepts related to the
fields of linear algebra and probability, and the Kelley-Bryson variational optimi-
zation procedure. Research into this last area proved particularly fruitful, as it re-
sulted in the successful design of optimal trajectories for several space missions. In
particular, the Apollo program and space shuttle flights that followed benefitted
greatly from the application of optimal control theory. The contributions of Kalnlan
filtering to the Apollo program represent yet another nlilestone for the emerging
control theory of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Kalman filter was implemented
using a square-root algorithm in the measurement of stars taken by the astronauts
with the aid of a sextant. Both optimal control theory and Kalman filtering provide
tangible examples of the cruc~alrole played by control science in important programs
such as the Apollo project.
As a result of its early success in solving mainly aerospace-related problems,
NGC theory soon found application in such diverse areas as mcdicine, industrial
manufacturing, and energy management. For example, two French researchers werc
able to formulate the problem of treating certain cerebral edemas or malignant brain
tumors by the simultaneous administration of vasopressin and cortisone into a non-
linear rnultivariable control problem. The treatment resulting from their work is
currently used in the neurosurgery clinic of the Hbpital de la Pitie in Paris [Fleming,
19881. Although examples of this type demonstrate the profound impact of control
theory in general, and are not altogether rare, it remains true that the majority of
progress in N G C research and development continues to find its greatest application
in aerospace.
The preceding historical account is provided to illustrate the emergence of
advanced NGC systems and their applications. The emergence of the various N G C
methodologies contributed significantly to progress achieved in the development of
state-of-the-art systems and control theories in the 1960s. Unfortunately, it was not
long before the development of the NGC system became too mathematically ori-
ented in spite of the pressing need to solve many remaining practical problems. It
would appear reasonable that the obligation of the NGC engineer should be first
to commit to solving practical NGC problems [Ho, 19871. In the course of carrying
Sec. 1.1 Overview 3

out such an obligation, thc cngincer will oftcn discover relevant theorics that surface
spontaneously. While theoretical discovcries of this type often allow thc engineer -
to conduct furthcr systcm research, it remains impcrativc for professional engineers
to commit themselves to solving what are considered to bc rcal-world problems.
Very oftcn, practicing engineers encounter difficulty in just understanding the
theorics presented at conferences and in journals, not to mention applying them.
What is at issue here is not a debate of the merits of theory versus those of applied
technology. Rathcr, thc issue is onc of determining an effcctivc way to build a
practical N G C systcm; understanding an csotcric N G C theory is of sccondary im-
portance. While there is currently an abundance of N G C problems waiting to be
solved, along with a whole assortment of tools capable of attacking these problems,
diminished funding in this area hinders further development of N G C technology.
In order to recapture the strong financial support for NGC research of the 1960s,
the N G C engineering community must first be seriously committed to attacking
those immediate ~racticalNGC ~ r o b l e m sthat remain outstanding. " In the absence
of such a first step, any practical system and control theory is not likely to be
developed, as evidenced by the slow progress of N G C technology in aerospace. T o
highlight this fact, N G C tcchnologv used in the Apollo project was later directly
applicd to the space shuttle with hardly any new development. As a result of the
diminishing research effort in the NGC discipline since the Apollo era, scarcely any
systems or control theories have proven valuable enough for practical use in N G C
systems.
The extent to which system and control theories have facilitated the clarifi-
cation of various N G C problems and issues cannot be overemphasized. However,
the N G C engineering field still faces several practical problems, one of which in-
volves the question of identifying the basic reason for the gap between theory and
practice and recommending a means to close this gap for the sake of advancement
in the N G C field. In light of this, the impetus behind this book is an attempt to
bridge the gap between theoretical arguments and the practical needs of the N G C
community by providing detailed discussions and practical examples of MDASE
in this area. A more detailed treatment of the MDASE cycle is given in Book 1 of
the series. Because experimental and theoretical aspects of NGC system research
both represent integral parts of systems and control science, it is essential to consider
N G C theories and physical systems together. If an N G C system of a flight vehicle
or robotic system is carefully modeled, it usually serves as a strong foundation for
the design process which, in turn, leads to analysis and simulation for validation.
The final step of the procedure involves evaluation. Thus, the MDASE cycle is an
important process in yielding practical results. Through demonstrations of the var-
ious techniques and examples in this book, the author hopes to shed light on and
unravel complicated systems and control theories, and to translate them into practice.
Before they can be brought into the operational stage, advanced N G C algo-
rithms must pass through a developmental stage involving several years of studies
and experiments. Through organizing sessions, panel discussions [Lin, 1983-1985;
Lin et al., 1986; Lin and Speyer, 19851, and workshops [Lin, 1987; Lin and Franklin,
4 Introduction Chap. 1

19901 on aerospace vehicle N G C systems for the Amcrican Control Conference and
the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control over a period of several years, the
author has been able to keep abreast of the current trends in N G C technology and
to understand its practical needs in different situations. Thus, the author is able to
provide a diverse range of advanced NGC techniques in the book which the reader
can then apply to various areas of NGC with competence, developing the best
intuitive design. Since all flight vehicles and robotic systems share the same N G C
techniques, the techniques presented in the book are applicable to these complex
dynamic systems. Applications presented throughout the book and techniques for
these applications are summarized in Book 1 of the series. In addition, appropriate
applications are embedded throughout the text to enhance the reader's understanding
of the techniques presented.

Importance of advanced NGC concepts and their impact. Ad-

vanced N G C systems, although designed so that machines might interact effectively
with the elements of nature, rely on human elements for their continued progress
and success. The beginning of this chapter highlights the role played by control
theory in the success of the Apollo project. The successful development of modern
fly-by-wire aircraft such as the F-16 fighter jet can also be credited largely to control
theory. And while modern manufacturing is becoming increasingly dependcnt on
highly accurate process and machine control, it is an unfortunate circumstance that
the continuous contributions that are made in N G C technology and the resulting
achievements go largely unappreciated by the broader scientific and engil~ccring
communities. The way it1 which N G C technology is isolated from the othcr tech-
nological disciplines in governmental, industrial, and academic settings is vcry ap-
parent [Speyer, 19871. Consequently, the acrospacc industry has not fully rcalizcd
the potctltial of N G C tech11010gy it1 acrospace systems, and progrcss in this area
especially continues to be delayed. This situation will continue unabated so long as
those involved fail to grasp both the importance of making progress in the area of
advanced N G C technology and the relation of this tcchnology to vital functions in
certain acrospace projects. For example, in certain commercial aircraft projects,
advocates of new methodologies for enhancing safety and ride quality performances
are for the most part ignored. While this can be partially attributed to thosc who
prefer conventional dcsign approaches such as the root locus or othcr classical tech-
niques, some of the blame must be laid on inadequately trained pcrsonncl, many
of whom lack a complcte understanding of thc basic principles of modcrn and ad-
vanced control tcchniqucs. At~othcrreason for this is that thc designers of these
commercial transports dcpcnd entirely on the aerodynamic dcsign to improve ve-
hicle stability and efficiency, and totally ignorc the merits of advanccd NGC systems
design.
Those who are usually quick to criticize techt~ologicaladvance have always
been skeptical about the complex and unreliabic nature of new technology, doubtirlg
the wisdom of investing so much trust in the capabilities of ncw tcchnology. How-
ever, competition and survival dcpend on technological advatlcc. It xvould bc a grave
Sec. 1.1 Overview 5

error to halt technological advance just becausc some inconvcnicnces arise at the
beginning of each new era. Despite the fact that any criticisms can generally be
found to be true in the short term, the long-term positive contributions that advanced
technology has to offer should be emphasized. After a new era of technology has
set in, new systems perform more complex tasks and become less expensive than
their archaic counterparts. The reliability factor, that is, the mean time between
failures, also improves several times over that of older technology of similar com-
plexity. The cost does not increase as much as the cr~ticsargue, as evidenced in the
recent shift between the technologies of the 1970s and 1980s. Spccifically, in the
weapon systems field, the gains have measured up to the cost. Therefore, critics
can discard the notion that new technological concepts are not important [Deitch-
man, 19871.
In the realm of aerospace, unlike other technologies such as aerodynamics,
structures, and propulsion, advanced NGC technology has yet to distinguish itself
as an essential discipline. There are two main factors that account for this predica-
ment. First, N G C technology in aircraft development has been traditionally ac-
corded a secondary role. This is because many of those who direct large aerospace
programs are unacquainted with the important role of advanced NGC technology
~ ~

and its impact on aerospace. Second, no hardware or other tangible entities are
produced by N G C technology; whereas, shapes are formed by aerodynamics, de-
livered by structures, and driven by propulsion [Speyer, 19871. Therefore, NGC
technology has barely been utilized in any of the aerospace vehicle design processes
with the exception of the Apollo project. According to the author's knowledge,
only a few newly developed European commercial airplanes employ advanced con-
trol laws. Faulty instrumentation and inadequate computational capabilities rein-
forced the negative view of NGC technology in the past, but even with the rapid
improvements existing in the present this view still persists.
T o reap the benefits of advanced technology, timely investments in the pursuit
thereof are crucial. Most people cite only the recent progress in military technology.
However, new technology must be applied to the commercial arena as well if eco-
nomic dominance is to be possible. For example, airlines tend to purchase ultra-
modern airplanes from companies employing more advanced technical sophistica-
tion. From this viewpoint, Airbus, the European company, is a commercial success
story. It is actively involved in investigating N G C issues and incorporating new
N G C technology into its products as well as its human resources. Thus, research
and development (R&D) of advanced N G C concepts cannot be stressed enough.
It is important that advanced NGC design concepts enter early in the design
phase. The earlier engineering errors are detected, the less severe future costs and
schedule delays will be. An example of this type of situation is brought into focus
in the now famous article entitled, "Probing Boeing's Crossed Connections" by
Karen Fitzgerald in the May 1989 issue of IEEE Spectrum, in which the author writes:
"By the end of Uanuary], the [FAA] had received 12 more reports of crossed wires,
not only on 757s, but on 737s, and not only on cargo fire-extinguishers, but on
engine fire extinguishers, and one case of crossed wires from engine temperature
sensors. . . . As of March 17, the FAA had received 66 more reports of bungled
6 Introduction Chap. 1

wiring and plumbing in fire-protection systems on all four classes U737, J747, J757,
J7671 of aircraft."' If it is possible to make such errors in those systems which are
by n o means as complicated as an NGC system, then errors in more complicated
systems will certainly result unless advanced system concepts coupled with the
proper quality control techniques are utilized.
As shown in Figure 1-la, the overall cost resulting from engineering error
increases dramatically as time progresses. Therefore, errors detected early can dras-
tically reduce the overall cost. Although engineering R&D design and analysis con-
stitutes only approximately 15 percent of the entire project cost, as high as 90 percent
of the overall cost of the project may rely on R&D results, as illustrated in Figure
1-lb. Therefore, inadequacy or errors in the R&D design and analysis due to in-

a) Cost

Detection of
)Engineering Error
1 2 (Normalized Year)
Cost Resulting From Engineering Error Increases
Dramatically As Time Progresses
Therefore Errors Detected Early Can Drastically
Cut Down The Overall Cost

b, Cost
OPS: Operating Cost
MAN: Manpower cost
R&D: Research 8: Development Cost

Life Cycle CDst = OPS t MAN t R&D

Figure 1-1 Cost lnvolvemcnt

I
Karen Fitzgerald. "Probing Bocing's Crosscd Connections." IEEE Spccfrurn. May 1989. p 33.
experience or other conservative factors can often lead to a drastic increase in the
overall time and cost. Quoting from the same article, the author writes, "A Boeing
engineer who asked that he not be identified said a too ambitious schedule for the
new 747-400 aircraft has caused wiring errors so extensive that a prototype had to
be completely rewired last year, a $1 million job. . . . In a technology that can
tolerate few errors, the crossed connections raise the specter of undetected errors in
other parts of aircraft. "'
Each new II&D assignment presents additional challenges which will tax the
skill and ingenuity of ~ ~ C - N G C engineer and will only be solved through
design
hard work, experimentation, and tests. Hence, each new assignment must be ana-
lyzed on its own merits, and past practices and methods must not be allowed to
stifle new ideas and concepts. Both the past and the present must never forget the
common denominator for all designs, which is the human element. Unfortunately,
in advanced technology, undue conservatism often hinders progress. Ironically, the
objective of any technology should be to go beyond the current state o f design
concepts.
The NGC field, although relatively new, is currently in an excellent state. I t
is responsible or substantial contributions to engineering, science, and economics
as well as the standard of living in the United States and other countries. One of
the main contributions of this text is a new perspective of the N G C system whereby
the NGC system's interaction with other disciplines will establish the basis for truly
innovative problem formulations and methodologies. Methodologies used through-
out the book are practical and have been employed in the designing a n d testing of
NGC systems. In the past, classical designs were generally used for NGC of unaug-
mented dynamic systems. Thus, some designs covered in the book are inevitably
related to the classical approach. However, modern state-of-the-art N G C system
design for highly augmented dynamic systems, which is rapidly gaining popularity,
plays the principal role in the design methodologies used in the book. Integration
of N G C designs with various engineering automation and signal processing systems
are the ultimate goals of this advanced technology. The intention, therefore, of this
book and Books 3-5 of the series is to meet this challenge.

Advanced NGC systems. It is apparent that the usefulness of advanced

NGC systems has infiltrated the modern world. In the modern aerospace field, NGC
designers must be thoroughly equipped to handle N G C systems problems and able
to draw on a rather sophisticated knowledge base encompassing many diverse fields;
in particular, they must draw on their in-depth knowledge of modern dynamics
and MDASE techniques (see Book 1 of the series). They must also understand the
finer interactions between systems and components in their nonlinear operational
range. Thus, it is natural for them to appreciate the fact that an NGC system should
be designed as an integrated system. Additionally, they must consider the wide
range of applications of modern digital, analog, and hybrid computers. Very often,

* Ibid.. p 34-35.
 8 Introduction Chap. 1

more sophisticated analytical and computational tools are required to properly model
N G C systems. The advantage of new technologies can be utilized to the fullest
extent through the advances of new mathematics, analysis, and computation. For
example, N G C system scientists and engineers are now more actively involved with
the designing and manufacturing of microprocessor/microelectronic chips and com-
puters in addition to interfacing with t h m d y n a m i c s , structure, propulsion, sens-
ing, actuation, target acquisition, and weapon systems.

1.2 OUTLINWSCOPE

As shown in the Preface, in Figure 1 labeled Modern Navigation, Guidance, and

Control (NGC) Processing, the five primary topics that make up this book are: (1)
MDASE of N G C processing (Chapter 2); (2) modern multivariable control analysis
(Chapter 3); (3) design algorithms for advanced N G C system design (Chapter 4);
(4) fundamentals of N G C processing (Chapters 5 and 6); and (5) advanced N G C
systems design (Chapters 7 and 8). O f the subtopics that appear alongside each of
these five main categories in the figure, only those that are connected by solid lines
are treated in this book. Those subtopics that are connected by broken lines are
treated specifically in the books referenced after them.

MDASE of NGC processing. For the purpose of continuity, the first of

the five main topics, as shown in Figure 1, deals with MDASE of N G C processing
in Chapter 2, highlighting some ofthe key features of Book 1. In particular, Chaprer
2 summarizes the major stages in the evolution of the design and development
process.

Modem multivariable control analysis. Modern multivariable control

analysis, which is the second of the five primary topics as shown in Figure 1, is
mainly concerned with the analyses of robustness, performance, dynamics, and
stability. Chapter 3 deals specifically with robustness and performance analysis.
Robustness analysis is particularly important for examining multivariable control
systems design. Performance analysis, which is taken up in the later part of Chapter
3, includes the various statistical methods used in the analysis and synthesis of any
modern NGC system. The subject of stability and dynamics analysis, which is
threaded throughout this book, is one of the principal topics in Book 1 of the series.
The performance predicted by advanced control theory is rarcly achieved when
designing and developing an N G C system. A detailed analysis of N G C systems
must therefore include a treatment of the actual hardware equipment, citing those
characteristics that tend to limit system performance. The most difficult aspects of
analyzing N G C loops (at least, in missile applications) include, but are not lirnitcd
to, estimating their stability, determining their accuracy, and finding the trajcctory
of the pursuer vehicle along with the normal and lateral accclcrations necessary to
achieve that trajcctory for varying types of targct motion. Thc theoretical and cx-
perimental techniques for treating these problems are presented in Chapters 2 and
3 in this book, and in Book 1 of the series.

Design algorithms for advanced NGC systems. The methods that

together constitute the third of the five main topics listed in Figure 1, design al-
gorithms for advanced N G C systems design, arc listed with this category in the
same figure. The first of these, modern filtering and estimation techniques, is cov-
ered in Chapter 4, while advanced multivariablc control systems design techniques
are the subject of Book 3. The last two topics in this category, adaptive N G C systems
(detection and identification) and knowledge-based and neural network approaches
to system control are given special treatmcnt in Book 4 of the series.
I t is worthwhile at this point to examine the hierarchical and interactive re-
lationships among the different design techniques mentioned previously that make
up the design algorithms for advanced NGC systems. These techniques provide a
methodology for selecting successful N G C systems and integrating them according
to the mission requirements of a particular vehicle. The primary focus of this par-
ticular treatmcnt of design algorithms is to describe present-day components, sys-
tems, and synthesis techniques from the system-integration point of view. The goal
is to demonstrate how to analyze and select an N G C system to meet a set of per-
formance requirements when the vehicle maneuver and dynamic environment are
specified. The various techniques which make up the design algorithms are arranged
in hierarchical order in Figure 1-2a. From the figure, it can be seen that modern

Modern Filering and Estimation

+
Advanced Multivariable
(Chap. 4)
+
Adaptive NGC System
Control Design Techniques Design Twhniques
(Book3) CBook 4)
v v
Knowledge-Eased and Neural-Network
Awroacha to Svstems ConUol

Figure 1-2 Design Algorithms for Advanced NGC Systems (a) Hierarchical Re-
lationship (b) Advanced NGC Systems
10 Introduction Chap. 1

filtering and estimation techniques represent the starting point in the use of design
algorithms. Results from the application of these techniques are then used for both
advanced multivariable control and adaptive N G C system designs; however, adap-
tive N G C techniques are also used to iterate or improve upon the multivariable
control design. The results from the application of these last two techniques serve
as input to the design of a knowledge-based and neural network intelligent system.
The interactive relationships between components and techniques are depicted in
Figure 1-2b. This figure illustrates how the design algorithms are made more in-
telligent by incorporating a knowledge-based and neural network approach to N G C
system design. Ultimately, an N G C system is designed to accurately control the
outputs of a system whose dynamics contain significant uncertainties. This involves
the following fundamental processes and their associated algorithms: (1) modeling
ofthe system based on physical laws (see Book 1 ofthe series); (2) systern identification
based on experimental data (presented in Book 4 of the series); (3) signal processing
of the output by filtering, prediction, state estimation, and detection (modern fil-
tering and state estimation are presented in Chapter 4, while adaptive N G C systems
detection is presented in Book 4 of the series, and digital processing is presented in
Book 5 of the series); and (4) synthesizing the control input and applying it to the
system (advanced control theory is presented in Book 3).

NGC processing. Referring again to Figure 1 of the Preface, the fourth

of the five main subjects which comprise this book deals with N G C processing. As
indicated in the figure, N G C processing includes as subtopics navigation. guidance,
and flight control processing. The first of these, navigation processing, is covered
in Chapter 5 . Guidance processing is treated in Chapter 6, while flight control
processing is presented in Book 3 of the series. In the course of the last three decades,
N G C systems have evolved from a state in which they existed only in the imagi-
nation to their current state in which they are very much a part of reality. Both
military and commercial aviation, as well as other fields including automation and
manufacturing, owe a good deal of their success and technical advancement to the
parallel advancement in the area of N G C systems. It can readily be said that the
development of N G C systems and techniques, which in their ,--- infancy
- often led to
unpredictable accuracy and reliability performance, has been most successful, es-
pecially when examined in light of the often extreme environmental conditions to
which the components of these systems are typically subjected. Figure 1-3 gives a
block diagram representation of all the signal processing elements that are needed
to perform the functions listed in the previous paragraphs. Each block in the diagram
additionally lists the corresponding chapter number where the individual elements
are treated in more detail. It can be seen from the figure that N G C proccssing
involves several processors, each of which must function individually as well as in
unison with others.

Advanced NGC systems design. This constitutes the last of the five
main topics covered in this book. Looking once again at Figure 1 of the Preface, it
 Feedback Sensing Information
I I I
Tracking Sensing Information

+
I

Guidance
+
Control Signal State
Target Tracking Algorithms Reconstruction/Estimation Estimate
(Chap. 7) (Chap. 6) (Book 1 )
--- ------

-
I Advanced Vehicle Motion
Navigation Advanced
Guidance Estimator
System 4 System (Chap. 4; Books 1, 3,4, 5)
night
(Chap. 5) Control
(Chap. 8)
System Control Surface
(Books 1, 3,4, 5)
Guidance Commands Deflection Commands
b

I I
Navigation
Steering Signal and Attitude Information

Information Data Man-in-the-Loop Commands

(Controls & Displays)

Figure 1-3 NGC Processing

12 Inhroductlon Chap. 1

can be seen that this topic is concerned with the following subjects: navigation and
guidance filter design (Chapter 7); advanced guidance systems design (Chapter 8);
and advanced flight control system design (Book 3). These subjects prepare the
reader for the actual design of integrated, adaptive, and intelligent N G C systems
design, presented in Book 4 of the series, and of digital NGC systems design,
presented in Book 5 of the series.
 Modeling-Design-
Analysis-Simulation-
Evaluation (MDASE)
of NGC Processing
It is brought to the reader's attention at this point that a very broad picture of the
modeling-design-analysis-simulation-evaluation (MDASE) cycle of the NGC sys-
tem has already been put forth previously in Book 1 of the series. In order to allow
for smooth discussions of the modern NGC processing tasks and for highlighting
the way in which NGC processing gets involved in the MDASE cycle, advanced
NGC concepts must first be examined. The examples chosen in the following dis-
cussions serve to introduce various parameters and functions of NGC processing
with respect to particular applications.

2.1 LINEARINONLINEAR INTERCEtT NGC SYSTEM

The conventional approach taken by design engineers to the avionics has been to
break up the avionics into three distinct and independent systems: the navigation,
guidance (midcourse andlor terminal), and flight control systems.

Navigation system. The navigation system functions to provide position,

velocity, and attitude of the vehicle with respect to a reference coordinate frame.
Using high-accuracy gyros and accelerometers, it is conventionally configured as
an inertial system in either a gimballed or strapdown mode.
14 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

Guidance. From the perspective of a control system, guidance is a matter

of finding the appropriate compensation network to place in series with the plant
in order to accomplish an intercept. In order for the pursuer to impact a maneu-
verable target with little miss distance, guidance uses the principles of feedback
control. The purpose of the guidance system is to determine appropriate pursuer
flight path dynamics such that some pursuer objective might be achieved efficiently.
The guidance system decides the best trajectory (physical action) for the pursuer
based on its knowledge of the pursucr's capability, target capability, and desired
objectives. In many applications, the guidance system is designed so that it makes
use of an inertially stabilized tracker (for example, seeker) that directly measures
the angular rates between the pursuer and its target in a fixed coordinate frame. The
function of the guidance computer is to mathematically integrate the separate func-
tions of navigation and the flight control system (FCS).

FCS. The function of the FCS is to control the pursucr in pitch, yaw, and
roll motion. The FCS executes the guidance commands and stabilizes the pursuer
in flight. The FCS, upon receiving commands from the guidance law, then issues
its own commands to the appropriate aerodynamic andlor thrust controls of the
pursuer so that the guidance command can be properly executed. It is usually con-
figured as a system equipped with low-accuracy inertial components (gyros and
accelerometers). Small tactical missiles and most large transport vehicles often have
open-loop control instead of the more complex FCS control.

2.1.1 LinearlNonlinear Intercept NGC Processing

Guided weapons or missilcs are normally guided from shortly after launch until
target intcrccption. The NGC systcrn supplics stccring commands to aerodynamic
control surfaces or corrccting clemcnts of the thrust vector subsystem to maneuver
the weapon to its targct and to make it possible for the weapon to intercept moving
targets. The guidance process, which is ruled by signal proccssing algorithms im-
plcmented in the N G C system, a prcset flight program, or both, is essentially a
feedback control systcrn where the pursuer-target engagcmcnt is considered part of
the N G C loop. Thc N G C loop consists of the guidance systcnl together with dy-
namic controls. Elc~ncntsof this loop include an information subsystem, control
clcmcnts, an opcrator, and pursucr dynamics. The components for the N G C systcrn
arc shown in Figurc 2-1 in which the ovcrall control of thc pursucr is dividcd into
two or lnorc loops. The main control loop in thc diagram is thc guidancc loop,
which is thc outcr loop that controls translational dcgrccs of frccdom, whilc the
inner controlIFCS loop controls pursucr attitude. ,The guidancc loop contains guid-
ancc scnsors for sensing pursucr motion, targct motion, or rclativc motion of thc
targct with rcspcct to the pursucr. This information is uscd in thc guidance computer
or the corrccting nctworks, togcthcr with information conccrning thc intended flight
profilc, to gcncratc guidance (latcral acceleration) commands for the FCS. Thc FCS
and actuation in turn direct control surface dcflcctions to altcr thc pursucr's trajcc-
tory. The body ratcs and accclcrations arc fed back to thc incrtial sensors to closc
the FCS loop.
16 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

The guidance and control laws used in current tactical missiles are based largely
on classical control design techniques. These control laws took birth in the 1950s
and have evolved into fairly standard design procedures. Proportional feedback is
generally used to correct missile course in the guidance loop, which is commonly
referred to as proportional navigation guidance (PNG), and is quite successful against
nonmaneuvering targets. The controller for a homing missile, in general, is a closed-
loop system known as an autopilot, which is a minor loop inside the main guidance
loop. In addition to the control surface and servon~echanism,the autopilot consists
of mainly the acceleron~etersand/or (rate) gyros to provide additional feedback into
the missile servos for missile motion modifications. Advanced sensors may measure
other variables. N o explicit state estimators are used and the signals are filtered to
reject high-frequency noise. Broadly speaking, autopilots control either the motion
in the pitch and yaw planes (lateral autopilots), or the motion around the missile
axis (roll autopilots). In general, the roll: pitch, and yaw channels are uncoupled
and are typically controlled independently of each other. All commands are am-
plitude or torque constrained to ensure autopilot and n~issilcstability. Classical
controllers have two major advantages, simplicity in design and simplicity in im-
plementation, but they also have several problems.
A pursuer is designed to complete the basic homing loop, which requires a
sensor (a seeker in the case of a guided missile) to track the targct, a noise filter to
reduce the effect of noise, a guidance law to generate thc dcsircd guidance (acccl-
eration) commands to home on the target. an FCS to rcccibc thc dcsircd accelcration
commandfrom the guidance system and to generate the required acceleration ca-
pability to insure interception of the maneuvering targct, and, finally, a good un-
derstanding of the physics of the homing engagement itsclf. Figure 7-2 depicts a
miss-distance analysis model conlposed of elemenrs rcprcscnting the intercept kin-
ematics plus clclncnts affecting the intcrccpt guidancc dynamics (that is. pursuer
dynamics and the NGC system), and illustrates the intcrdcpcndcncc bct~veensystcnl
elements. Inasmuch as thc total system perfornlancc is affcctcd by the individual
characteristics of evcry elcmcnt, the system cnginecr is grcatly conccrned with this
system interaction. The kinematic part inside the lowcr left dottcd box generates
the LOS angle in terms of pursucr and target motion. Based on the LOS anglc, the
N G C system generates a latcral acceleration for the pursuer, whilc trying to bring
the projectcd miss to zero. In the model, a rclativc position ) I , is added to a glint
noisc y,, thc result of which is multiplied by the inverse of thc range R to produce
a true LOS anglc corruptcd by glint noise. u, in inertial coordinates. A mcasured
LOS angle u is thcn obtaincd by adding ro (5. a radomc crror coupling u,and the
following angular noisc tcrms: rangc-depcndcnt (thermal) noisc o,,,, rangc-indc-
pcdcnt (fading) noisc a,, and cluttcr noisc o,.It thcn scrvcs as input to thc scckcr
dynamics to producc a mcasured LOS ratc 6 that is itsclf corruptcd by bias u l , and
g sensitivity. The output from thc scckcr u is the input to thc guidancc filter. Many
signal processing tcchniqucs arc uscd to discrin~inatcthctargct from its background,
other targcts, and decoys. The guidancc law functions to gcncratc midcoursc and/or
18 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

terminal steering commands u, based on the guidance filter output. Before being
sent to the autopilot, u, is limited. In general (except for coordinated turn vehicle),
the methods used to generate the guidance command signals u, for guiding a pursuer
in each of two mutually perpendicular planes are identical. Consequently, the guid-
ance algorithm needs to be determined forwnly one of the planes. In the treatment
presented here, this plane will be the missile s horizontal plane. In Figure 2-2, u, is
normally taken to be the lateral acceleration command. As long as saturation effects
are ignored, the model shown in Figure 2-2 is a linear time-varying system driven
by stochastic inputs. The inclusion of acceleration saturation effects causes the model
to become nonlinear.

2.1.2 Modeling and Simulation

The digital simulation technique in which the equations of motion are represented
by' a set of first-order nonlinear differential equations is widely recognized. The
modeling vector form is given as (see Figure 2-3):
x(t) = f(x(t), u(t), t) with initial conditions x(tO) = xg (2- 1a)
where the function f(x, u ) includes all of the model equations and NGC algorithms.
Equation (2-la) corresponds to Figure 2-3, in the absence of any noise inputs.
Depending on the specific application, the initial conditions are given, and the ter-
minal time tf is to be determined. For intercept flight simulation, rf is determined
by either the point of closest approach of the two vehicles or the time at which the
range rate passes through zero for the first time. Numerical integration techniques
are then used to integrate these equations with respect to time so that the time history
of the state from an initial condition x(t0) to a terminal state x(tf) can be obtained.
The output of the simulation is typically the time history of the state, from which
a performance criterion can be formulated as a function of the terminal state. The
flight vehicle to be designed determines the performance criteria in the simulation.
In the case of a guided missile, good performance is represented by short miss
distance or short range between the two vehicles at t,. The overall simulation block
diagram, shown in Figure 2-4, defines all of the state equations. Referring again to

Nonlinear Function -
t
f(x(t).uo),t)

Figure 2-3 Nonlinear Dynamic Systems

20 MDASE of N G C Processing Chap. 2

Figure 2-3, the modeling vector form, when a noise input vector is considered as
shown in the figure, can be written
k(t) = f(x(t), 4 t h t ) + w(t) (2-1 b)
where w(t) usually, although not necessarily, .denotes a white-noise input vector.
A more general case is considered in Figure 2-4, in which the model includes certain
error sources resulting from imperfect measurements or unmodeled dynamics. In-
corporating these error sources in Equation (2-la) gives
k = f(x, U) + b + n ~ ( x t), + m(t) (2- lc)
where b is the constant bias term; n l (x, t) is a state-dependent random vector; and
nz(t) is a state-independent random vector. Equation (2-lc) could also apply to
Figure 2-3, in which case w ( t ) is simply the sum of 6, nl(x, t), and n2(t). If M I or
n2 represents a colored-noise process, a shaping-filter technique can be used to model
either or both so that the new state vector can be augmented to Equation (2-lc).
The resulting augmented state equation is driven by the white-noise characteristics
only. A Monte Carlo technique, covariance analysis method, or an adjoint method
can be used to properly evaluate the selected performance criteria. These techniques
are described in Chapter 3.
In closed-loop control system analysis, it must be decided what level of detail
will be used to represent each element in the guidance loop. If it is desired to study
high-frequency system instabilities, then one must employ a representation that is
accurate at those frequencies. The elements that may be required to construct a
sufficiently accurate representation in this case include modeling the dynamics of
the nonrigid system, knowledge of the full nonlinear aerodynamic characteristics,
and detailed modeling of the seeker track loop, guidance signal processing, autopilot,
and noise sources. Conversely, a complicated model of this type would not be
required in the case of a preliminary parametric study of homing trends since the
main effccts of interest are found at low frequencies. Rathcr, a simplified represen-
tation of the more complex system capable of incorporating the available trim aero-
dynamic data and the low-frequency approximations to the different subsystcms
that make up the guidance kinematic loop would be more appropriate. After being
validated, this simplified representation can be used to study the relative performance
of various missile configurations as well as the result of varying system paramctcrs
such as time constants and limits [Reichert, 19811. In problems involving dynamic
modeling and controls, a state model is usually specified in addition to thc niea-
suremcnt equation, relating the state and measurement vcctors as shown in Table
2-1. Bcfore implctnenting thc preceding N G C simulation, it is important to un-
derstand the roles of thc pursucr system, the targets, and thc cr~virot~ment so that
appropriate modcls in Figure 2-4 can be devclopcd for a particular pursuer-targct
engagcmcnt scenario. Essential guidance and control softwarc modulcs arc as fol-
lows: intcrfacc, flight path planning, strapdown device, navigation, guidance, sta-
bilization and control, fin actuation, target tracking, and self-test. Their relationships
are dcscribcd in Figure 2-5.
 Sec. 2.1 LinearlNonlinear Intercept NGC System 21

TABLE 2-1 STATE MODELING

-
D t f ~ n xg ( m l ) state vcclor. y - (pxl) system output vcclor. z = (1x1) measured output vcetor.
u = (mxl) mnlml vmor, I, i(qil) cxogenram inpu v m o r
.?(I)w d a i n s all thc variables that can be measured and arc fed back to thc controller. Thc enuies of y(t) arc the variables lo be
conmllcd. up) is h c output of ihs mnuollsr. lc(l] wnsisu of thc reference inputs, the disturbance inpuu (e.g.. process noise
w(t)), and the rcnror M i s s ~(1).Note that y(t) and z(t) may have some wmponenu in common. The wnlinuous-lime nonlinear
system is dcscribcd by
T
i t =x I I t I , X I =x I ~ 4q1)*TI
Q ~ I= 0. I = at)b(t-r)
T
.,
(la)
Z ( I ) s h(x(1). I) t "(I), Qv(t)] = 0. Qv(l) "(1) ] = R(t) b(1-z)
(lb)
The continuous-time nonlinear system with d*crete.time nonlinear mcasuremcnls is repnscnled by:
i(1) = f(X(1). Nt), 11 + *I)
(2=4
T
q k ) = h[x(tkh kl + v(k); qv(kl1 = 0. Qv(k) v(k) I = Q
Gb)
w h e n the parameter k is considered to be a timc t and the measurements an sampled at discrete timc intcwak. The discrete form
of the state equation (la) is as follows:
k =k l1 k l Qqk)l = 0, q W k ) wT(k)l = or
(2c)
h applying many MDASE uchniqucs. the system quations (1)need to be linearized as:

where u, w, and v arc defined in Eqs. (1). Eq.(3) is equivalently expressed as

i(t) = &(I) + Bqf) t Br i(1) and y = Cx + h
~,
~ ) f(l) is a
The state equation in Egs. (4) is generally a nonhomogenwm differential quation with forcing term ~ .t f. (where
command vcctor anUor an anticipated forcing function mulling from a system nonlinearity andior an estimated dinurbance. In
the output quation of Eq. (4), h consisls of the measurement nonlinearilia and uncenainties. The discrete form of the system
quations (3) is:
x(k) = Wk.1) x(k-1) + W(k-1) qk.1) + wk-1) qk-1)

2.1.3 Guidance System Classification

There are several solutions that can be applied to the problem of guiding a missile
to an eventual near miss or collision with a target using only the observed motion
of the missile-target line of sight (LOS). In one of these, the missile is constantly
flying
. - directly toward the current target location. This method, termed simple pur-
suit, suffers from the fact that the missile must generally undergo rather severe
maneuvers as intercept is approached. A second solution concerns a constant-bearing
trajectory wherein the missile leads the target, much like the way in which a pro-
jectile is traditionally fired at a moving object. A collision invariably occurs as long
as the missile flies a course that keeps the relative missile-target velocity aligned
with the LOS. As shown in Figure 2-2, the missile trajectory becomes straight line
when the missile speed, target speed, and course are constant. PNG is a steering
law that is designed to produce a constant-bearing course even in the case of a
maneuvering target. T o accomplish this, one makes the rate of change of the missile
heading directly proportional to the LOS rate. While this technique presupposes
that the missile is able to respond instantaneously to changes in the LOS direction,
 22 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

StrapdownAFtU
-
o initialization Navigation Guidance Autopilot
o Euler o State Estimation o Midcourse & Terminal o Rate Stabilization
4 Transformation _* o Position + o Power On Mode o Acceleration Control
o Bias Compensation o Velocity o Power Off Mode o Aerodynamic Coupling
o Coordinate
Transformation o
*
o Acceleration
Estimate E m r s
o
o
Vertical Launch
Separation Mode
Stability

t
I
Seeker
Interface
o Aim Point
Self Test
o Test
Right Path Planning
o Stored Mission
Actuation1
o Fin Rate Limitation
4- Sequence 4-W
t
o Initialization Profile o Fin Angle Limitation
I 0 Status
- o Change Profile

Relative RF Environment & Clutter

Dynamics
ECM: Target Kinematics Sensors o Equations of Motion
o Rate Gyro , o Engagement
o Accelerometer o Environment

Figure 2-5 Pursuer Target Tracking Processing Software Modules

there is in practice some delay in returning to a constant-bearing trajectory subse-

quent to a target maneuver as a result of finite missile responsiveness and filtering
introduced to diminish the effects of noise. Figure 2-6 defines the conventional
PNG configuration, in which the measured LOS rate u is filtered through a noise
filter to produce a smoothed LOS rate estimate u, and u, is made proportional to
u A similar idea is used in modern guidance approaches based on optimization
techniques. If measurement noise is to be suppressed, then consideration must be
given to a low-pass noise filter. PNG systems generally employ a first-order low-
pass filter, which has a transfer function as shown in Figure
- 2-6. The missile guid-
-
ante computer, using the preceding relationships, computes steering commands.
Besides noise filters, com~ensationsare introduced to offset such factors as variations
in the missile's velocity and radome effects. Also, in order to maintain aerodynamic
stability along with structural integrity, steering command limits are imposed [Witte
and McDonald, 19811.

2.1.4 Flight Control System (FCS) and FCS Sensing

That part o f the system comprising the FCS also includes the inertial reference unit
(IRU)to measure A,,,. A,,, is the acceleration of the pursuer in response to the
guidance command, which is applied to the FCS and results in operation of the
pursuer's control surfaces. The control surfaces can be caused by aerodynamic cross
coupling, dynamics nonlinearity, and structural vibration to deflect at different ori-
entations from the desired guidance input, thus contributing to miss distance. Au-
 Set. 2.2 Target Signal Processing 23

vmf
Missile
Mi&
vector
velocity MiSc --
without ,
, R ~ V target
~ velocity vector

maneuver

The basic proportional navlgation equation

Seeker Guidance Autopilot
filter
-*-
Am a V,,,? = AV,b Gs(S) GF(S) GA(S)
,
Missile/ / 1\ ~uidance.res~onse
/
\
maneuver Navigation clos/nng Line sight
ratio
rate
velocity = Velocity I line of sight
g(S) Range
*
k = Ik, Noise Ntcr bandwiith
V, Closing vebcily
s+t A Effcaive navigalioo mtw

Figure 2-6 Proportional Navigation (Courtesy o j K . Hiroshige, 1984)

topilot, actuator, structural aeroelasticity, sensors, and nonlinear airframe dynamics

are part of the actual mode of an FCS. Details of the FCS are presented in Book 3
of the series. The useful models for NGC design are summarized in Figure 2-7,
Table 2-2. and Table 2-3.

2.2 TARGET SIGNAL PROCESSING

A mathematical model is used to embody pursueritarget kinematics in the form of

parameters of the LOS as shown in Figure 2-8, which shows what type of processing
is required. A complete simulated engagement of pursuer target tracking begins
with the launching of the missile, is followed by a midcourse and a terminal phase,
and ends in an intercept and the scoring of missile-to-target miss distance. In active
homing, after launch the missile seeker transmits radio-frequency (RF) energy to
the target. The target converts this to a synthesized return and radiates it back to
the seeker radar. Multiple target returns, which include different ranges, velocities,
amplitudes, angular noise, and environments, can be generated simultaneously with
or without ECM. The returns are tracked by the seeker. As shown in the relative
geometry box in Figures 2-2 and 2-8, the homing loop is closed by calculating the
missile-to-target geometry as well as using the RF array to update the relative angular
 . MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

N [NORMAL FORCE1
X AXIS
(PITCH TOTAL MOMENT)

REFERENCE

Fx (YAW TOTAL MOMENT1

(AXIAL FORCE) V Z AXIS
(A) XCG - center of gravity lacation

XACC - arcelermeter location

(B)

-
CN
NORMAL
FORCE
COEFFICIENT
0
6

MAX (TRIM1
- .30

c~
TOTAL

MOMENT
COEFFICIENT
-
0 k@ya MACH CONSTANT
ALTITUDE =CONSTANT

OMAX ITRIM)

& = . 3 0 = 6MAX
6 = .20
6 = 00 b = -100
MACH =CONSTANT
ALTITUDE = CONSTANT TOTAL MOMENT COEFFICIENT CM
VERSUS ANGLE OF ATTACK n
(D)

Figure 2-7 (a) Horning Missile Axis System and Forces and Moments (b) Forces Due t o
Angle of Attack a and Control Fin Uetlection S in a Tail-Controlled Missile (c) Normal Force
Coefficient CN VS. Angle of Attack a (d) Total Moment Coefficicnr CM 1,s. Angle of Attack
a (Froin [n'erlincs, 1984(a)] u,irk prnnisrio~tfi.otnAACC)

position. As shown in the endgame computation and miss-distance computation

boxes, immediatcly before interception, the characteristics of the endgame including
the miss distance are determined by extrapolation. Finally, the LOS rates in the
pitch and yaw axes are computed and sent to the missile seeker as pitch and yaw-
head radar errors to fully close the guidance loop. E C M J E C C M modeling involves
digital computer simulations of an operating radarlsensing system including the
effects from an enen~v'sE C M . This allows the sensine " unit to be assessed under
field conditions as to whether it would perform satisfactorily so as to support the
tactical control system nlission. A sensing detection model is required to obtain
signal-to-noise ratio data as a function of target range. The model must be able to
allow these data to be obtained in both clear and noise-jamming environn~cnts.
Jamming can be produced by a self-protecting or stand-offjammer operating against
the radar signal in either the main lobe or the side lobe. Enemy threats may be
taking placc in ascending, level, or descending flight profiles. Multiparh and terrain
(terrain-masking and clutter) effects may also need to be considered.
 TABLE 2-2 LINeARIZED AIRPRAME RESPONSE

Hjrmal Auxlemlion: A, = v,?, ? = Aa + I36 (1)

"
- Aoxlcrdlion: 0 = -(h-1%
I1ilch Anxllrr - lib; u = 0 - y (2)
G ( ~- I i~ -C HI^ - 1*i2) v m - I SkI(~+~lls+~12s2)
'liansfcr l'maions: -= - c') -= - (4)
6 s2 + (A+#>&+ <: + All s2 t (A+l>)s + C + N) (6)

(W. - HC + 1%) k ( I + )&I'

-=
6 Dl (8)
- kl
w m lag
(5)
-0= .
6 s2 + (A+l))s + (: + N)
- 3
"1 (")
(6)

Ik,r 1;nil mnlml or c;tn:~rrlnirfr;mw with negligihlc liII from ctmlq,l s u t t ~ i.c..
~ , 1% 0. -
knrdynamic lift: A,,, = Vm? - Vm Atz = A Vm (0-Y); O =(I + s/A)Y (8)

- - -

A = -7ff - -at CN, aftcr boas1 (thrwl = 0 ) D = -Mi, = -ao (<Y(2Vm)) CMb AIRFRAME IS T H E HISULT O F TRADE-OFFS
E = -M* = -a,CM6 TO REDUCE 1/A &INCREASE MANEUVERABILITY
n = -i.,= -a, cNa WHILE MEhTlNG PHYSICALCONSTRAINTS
C = -Ma = -a,CM, a, = q ~ a l y y ,a I = -qS/(mVm)
6 = fin &fleaion or thnnt
BO kn &n!s%h W c w
Wnpw-5253. I
A, =achieved normal ameleralion a1 missile Iznfer o f gravity prrprndicllar lo missile body
A,,," = auzleration measured al the amelemmeler
6 rate
k, = acceleration gain umstant = k 2 = (J((!+/U)), P = Vm ( H ( z - a l
2 ( 8 1 ~
k 3 = L I P m = MaI(l&u)d)
Ul = 2 W w d = (A+I))/(C+AD)
&- h m p i n g ralio of airframe 4 -
if M a < ( )
o --natual frequrncy of airframe =
d
.
B., = 11o:" = lllC+r\o,
&
. .
Ma > 0 and 2Sdwd i s small

Ta = 4 missile l m i n g rate time mnslanl = -P/(BC-AE) = 111% lIA(if B 0 ) - -

u b = low f r e w n c y lead

rA
Courtesy of [ H i r o s h i g e , 19861 and from [Neslines, 1')84(a)l w i t h pernlissioll f r o t n AACC
TABLE 2-3 - s [Neslines. 19851 with permission from AACC
HIOH ~ R E Q ~ E~ N ~~ ~1 l From

a(~)
Aaua10r: --
4(5)
-
I+-st-
25,
1
s2
(1) -
Rate Gyro: ~ G ( S )-
0 )
-
2h
1+-s+-
1
s2
(2)

"A "1 "G 02

1t- s2
4 ~ s ) 1 6 (s) "sf
Acaleromaer: -= (3) Suuclural Filter: &= (4)
%(S) 2t*m s2 US) 1 +2 hsf + - s2
lt-st-
"xc w&~~~ ~
"sf "fF
Nominal Values for a Typical Missile:
UG = UW) &% LU, = 220 radkec, = 0.65. fA= 0.65,

The mode shape cnvclopes a n shown below.

- MODE MODE

.
5
5
.-
FREOUENCY
GENERALtYD
MASS t l b / ~/in) 0.0517 0.0373
SECOND MODE
0.6.
2
0.4 i Gym Location
0.2 )X

4.6 LOCATION
a) Fint and E m n d Mode Shapes
-
bl Normalized Bodv Bendinn Sham

The detailed flcxiblc body transfer Function from b LO body rae is

- 24
1
(av% & ( I v l s2

- ~ ~ I Y Y &

-.
&B -
Xffi XBL

6
,1 2Ei
l-+-s+l)
w1' Wi

-- -
Nominal values typically used in thc above equalion are
k damping of i t h v i b r a t i o n a l mode I n m i s s i l e molaent of i n e r t i a 11.75
9 t h e v i b r a t i o n a l frequency of t h e i t h

6 -
.ode
n o r n a l i z e d .lop a t r a t s g y r o a t a t i o n
-
*
(lb-ft-sec2)
l o c a t i o n of missile ffi (5.885 f t )
l o c a t i o n of missile hinge l i n e

- --
Xm
10.00503 rad/in., -0.01986 rad/in.) (11.3108 f t l
% n o r u l i a e d airvane deflection % mass of one f i n (0.0489 slupm)
<- 10.315 i n . / i n . , -0.1485 i n . / i n . ) %
-
d i s t a n c e between ffi of on8 f i n and

-
normalized a i r v a n e s l o p e hinge l i n e 10.084 I t )
1-0.02 r a d / i n . , 0.03308 r a d / i n . ) I, m e n t of i n e r t i a of m e f i n (0.00683
lt. e f f e c t i v e mass 40.0514 l b - s e c 2 / i n . , lb-ft-s.c2)
-0.03131 lb-sec / i n . )
Defining
-
Klsi g a i n of s t r u c t u r a l p a t h of the
I t h moda

%mi - qu*dIatlC a s r o Of the i t h .Dde a t r u c -

t u r s l path
-
the general transfer funaion from b lo body rate for each mode is given by 404% - 24 41"
Sec. 2.2 Target Signal Processing

1 HITMU
ECM
Target Dynamicl&

+ Relative ~ c o r n c n y t
Sewor
-Target Stale
Compurarion
Target Starc
bra 4 Sellsor Models -el Filtering &A Estimation
T
Esbres
Pmdicnon

rare Esnmator lnrduaoo

Figure 2-8 Target Tracking Processing

The most common measurements of target tracking systems consist of the

range R, range rate R, azimuth u, or elevation u, angles (see Figure 2-9). The three
coordinates to specify the position of the target are:

1. The x , y , z components of the tracking sensor-target range R

2. The azimuth u, elevation u,, and range R.
3. Direction cosines of the vector R and its length.

A tracking sensor or seeker mounted on a homing missile or an aircraft is a device

to detectltrack the relative position vector of a target with respect to the missile or
the aircraft. The function of the tracking sensor is to receive external signals that
are sent to the pursuer vehicle for the purpose of directing its course. Because of
its role in providing an essential communication link to the external environment,
the sensor becomes the key element of the entire vehicle system. In fact, a vehicle
is given a particular identity by the choice ofsensor. The source ofenergy responsible
for the signal that is picked up by the sensor may be energy reflected from the target,
energy emitted from the target, or energy from the target's own environment.
Assuming at this point that the sensor is capable of recognizing hot targets, or targets
that emit infrared energy, then the sensor will be selected on the basis of a certain
frequency or frequency band emitted by the target and will be optimized to respond
to the target signature in question. Given the relation of the sensor to the successful
operation of a vehicle, it becomes apparent that the aforementioned optimization
to a great extent affects the design of all smart weapons. Although there are other
important components besides the sensor'in the vehiclelmissile, the ability to neu-
tralize the sensor reduces the vehiclelmissile to something less than a smart weapon
[Heaston and Smoots, 19831.

Tracking sensor/guidance comparisons. One of the requirements of

a sensorltracker is to acquire and track all modes of target day or night. T o do this,
an air-to-air tracker uses a laser-auadrant tracker and a centroid track. whereas an
L

air-to-ground tracker uses a scene track, target track, and track adjust. A sen-
sorltracker must accurately update target position relative to IP, OAP, and VRP,
 MDASE of NGC PrOCesSlng Chap. 2

ELEVAT 1ON VIEW I PLAN VIEW

(A)

ALTITUDE
(BAR0 OR RADAR ALTIMETER)
ANGLE RATE
DIRECT ( E - J TPACKER)

Figure 2-9 (a) Visual Line-of-Sight (LOS) Angle Measurements Determine T w o Coordi-
nates of Aircraft-to-Target Position (b) Determination of Slant Range (c) External Grid Ref-
erence Targeting (Courfesy 0jJ.S.Ausman, 1986)

permitting target identification day or night. Low-altitude ranging sensors for NGC
algorithms include redundant range measurement and accurate range measurement
during terminal maneuver.
Sensors used in the capacity of seeker, depending on their operating wave-
lengths, are typically characterized, depending on the sensor's operating wavelength,
SIX. 2.2 Target Signal Proceulng 29

MULTllATERATlON OR TDOA FROM 3 OR MORE

GROUND-BASED, AIRBORNE, OR SATELLITE STATIONS

GROUND-BASED RADAR

AIRCRAFT TO
RGET

/ \

X
=TARGET

Figure 2-9 (Continued)

as optical sensor, infrared (IR) sensor, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), millimeter
wave (MMW), laser radar, television (TV)ivideo, microwave, antiradiation homing
(ARH), acoustic sensors, and multiple sensors. While .
.,~. of good .quality
. . . . .and high
,

resolution, an optical sensor nonetheless can suffer degraded-performance due to

weather conditions or time-of-day effects. An IR sensor is designed for use at day
or night, in conditions of rain and/or smoke, and is capable of hot-spot detection.
I t is also well suited for use against armor. and high-value and ship targets, and has
reasonably good resistance to ECM. However, this all comes at a high relative cost.
Like the SAR, the MMW sensor is designed for all-weather operation with the
capability of cloud penetration, and is particularly well suited to bad weather con-
ditions. MMW sensors can be used against armor and high-value targets, but are
not designed tor use against ship targets. They have a moderate resistance to ECM,
and are not unduly expensive to build. The laser radar, which utilizes three-di-
mensional distance information and surface reflectance, is desigaedfouse.atday
or night against armor and high-value targets. While not designed for use against
ship targets, it has a high resistance to ECM and comes at a relatively low cost.
Acoustic sensors are designed to function in underwater-erivironments. A T V sensor
cannot function at night and is designed primarily tor use against armor targets. It
30 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

is not very useful against high-value or ship --- targets.

-.- Although TV sensors have a
low resistance to E C M , - & ~are~ relitiVdy inexpensive. While a forward-looking
IR (FLIR) imaging sensor provides a different mode of target detection and rec-
ognition, a laser provides a different mode of target range and track. A video tracker
microprocessor FLlR consists of sensors and ancillary electronics as well as video
processing. Microwave sensors can function in all types of weather conditions and
are designed for use against high-value and ship targets, but not against armor
targets. They have low resistance to ECM and are relatively expensive to build.
ARH sensors are designed for all types of weather conditions and are only mod-
erately expensive to build [Hardy, 19861. Finally, multiple sensors act to process
multisensor information.
The interceptor/missile uses sensor data that are processed by the seeker, which
also acts to ensure that the sensor is receiving as much target information as possible.
Related to this last function, the seeker actually orients the sensor so that it can
survey, acquire, and then lock-on and track the target. The important components
making up the seeker include [Heaston and Smoots, 19831:

energy-gathering system, that is, antenna for radio frequency or lens/mirror

for IR, visible, and ultraviolet spectral regions, including radome o r IR-
domel~vindow
stable platform and its associated control system (body-fixed seekers employ
inertial sensors for an equivalent function)
sensor to convert the received energy into a more usable signal for processing
signal processing system used to produce a signal to point the antennalmirror
at the target and/or to provide signals to ultimately control the missile's tra-
jectory

Rather than focusing too much attention on any particular tracking sensor or seeker,
it is more advantageous to consider their fundamental properties. When, however,
the problem is that of conducting a precise system analysis, then a specific dynamic
model is assumed for a particular seeker, and this is integrated with that o f the
pursuer. Three homing configurations are assumed: passive, active, and semiactive.
In the passive case, only the LOS angle is available through an 1R seeker. In the
active homing case, both range and closing-velocity radar information are available
through measurements, but in the semiactive mode, these measurements are bistatic.

2.2.1 Targeting

The presentation on targeting in this section follows an excellent lecture by [Ausman,

19861. Position sensor data must be available for targeting so as to be able to locate
the pursuer with respect to the target. One or more coordinates of pursuer-to-target
relative position is measured with a targeting sensor. This device may also be used
Sec. 2.2 Target Signal Processing 31

to locate the pursuer with respect to a pseudo-target o r offset aim point, the position
of which with respect to the real target is known beforehand. Various types of
targeting sensors with examples of each are listed in Table 2-4. A particularly com-
mon typc of targeting sensor is one that measures the azimuth angle and depression
angle of the pursuer-to-target LOS. Examples of this typc of sensor system include
gunsights and headup displays (HUD) in combination with an attitude reference.
As shown in Figure 2-9a, these sensor systems measure just two angular position
coordinatcs. A slant-range sensor such as an air-to-ground ranging radar or a laser
range tinder can be used to directly measure the third coordinate of pursuer-to-
target position. This is illustrated in Figure 2-9b, which also shows two additional
more indirect techniques for determining the third (slant-range) coordinate.
Pursuer altitude h can be measured using a barometric altimeter. Subtracting
from this the target's altitude hT, assuming knowledge of the latter, results in the
quantity h - h ~ A. radar altimeter, however, can measure h - hT directly in a
target overfly. If it is not possible to realize a preparatory target overfly, the pursuer
must accept thc difference in terrain elevation between the target and the spot below
the aircraft at release or pickle as an additional measurement error. Slant range can
also be obtained indirectly from LOS angle ratc measurements. One example of an
angle ratc measuring device is the Norden bomb sight used in World War 11, which
relied on manual tracking during a long, straight, and level bombing approach. By
using EO trackers, modern angle rate sensors avoid the long, straight and level run-
in. The last entry in Table 2-4 corresponds to the external reference type of targeting
sensor, which is illustrated in Figure 2-9c. The typical application of this sensor
type is a blind bombing of known coordinates. As will be shown in Chapter 5,
examples of external references that can locate the pursuer with respect to the target,
assuming the same reference system is used to specify target coordinates, include
ground-based radar, LORAN, TACAN, DME, and GPS.

TABLE 2-4 TARGETING SENSORS

Generic Tyve
Exam~les
unsight, T
Line-of-Sight ( L a ) Angles kpping ~ a d a r , ' ~
Sonar.
~.
Azimuth o and Elevation o, Optical, Video Tracker
Radar, Laser, Sonar, Optical Instruments,
FCS, Passive Ranging Processor,
Range R Onboard Active Sensor
Altitude h Baro-Altimeter, Radar-Altimeter
LOS Rate b, bc EO Tracker
Range Rate k = -Vc Doppler Radar
External Reference Ground Radar Director
LORAN, TACAN, DME, GPS
Courtesy 0fJ.S. Ausman, 1986
 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

Line-of-sight (U)S)sensors. Common to all LOS sensors is that some

type of image of the target area is displayed to the weapon system operator. The
operator then selects the target by positioning a marker or pair of crossed reticles
over the target and depresses a target designating button. The computer responds
by recording the azimuth and depression angles of the target marker (pipper). What
the operator sees may be the real visual scene, or it may be an electronic reproduction
using TV, IR, or radar sensor subsystems. The resolution and accuracy ofthe shorter
wavelength systems (optical) are generally better than that of other systems. Ac-
curacy may be improved by using scene magnification, which can also aid in target
identification.

Range sensors. A range sensor, as shown in Table 2-4, provides t w o

means of measuring slant range from the pursuer to the target. For weapon delivery,
it is not necessary to have extremely accurate range measurement since the bomb
miss distance for typical dive deliveries is on the order of one fourth of the range
error responsible for the miss. That is, a range measurement error of 100 feet causes
a miss distance of only 25 feet, typically. What may at first appear to be an incon-
sistency is actually a consequence of the fact that the range error causes correlated
errors in ground range and in altitude that partially compensate each other. As an
example, a very large slant-range measurement causes the computer to estimate the
aircraft to be further from the target (short impact) but at a higher altitude (long
impact). It should be noted that the range R, the quality of information concerning
which would be very important if it were being directly utilized in the solution of
the NGC problem, is not an easily measured quantity. For missile applications, the
explicit range information may be obtained from either the launching platform or
launching shiplground defense site, as when the missile and target are illuminated
by the launching apparatus, or from the target sensors listed in Table 2-4. It still
may happen, however, that range information is not readily available, or that the
price in terms of space andlor dollars associated with the tracking and guidance
hardware to acquire reliable range information is prohibitively great. Such can be
the case with smaller missiles. Thus, it is advantageous to derive guidance algorithms
that do not require range information.

Altitude sensors. Inasmuch as it is a component of the pursuer's flight

instrument package, the barometric altimeter provides a convenient targeting sensor.
However, by reason of its rather doubtful accuracy, it usually serves as a backup
to be used in the event that the slant range sensor ceases to function correctly.
Assuming that local barometric pressure is accounted for, the largcst altimetry errors
are typically those arising from uncompensated stat~cpressure defect, which is a
bias type error that is on the order of a few pcrccnt of the dynamic pressure, and
to uncertainty in lapse rate, which is a scale factor typc error that is on the order
of a few percent of the pursuer's altitude above mean sea level. Besides altimetry
errors, any unccrtainty in the target altitude will result in an error in the computed
value of the pursucr's altitude above the target. While this unccrtainty is removed
Sec. 2.2 Target Signal Processing 33

on a bombing range, it can be significant in actual operational usage. Consequently,

one expects a certain amount of degradation in accuracy between bombing range
results and operational results with this type of bombing system. It becomes un-
necessary to know target altitude with a radar altimeter since this measures altitude
above terrain directly. Given that the pursuer is not usually situated directly above
the target at the instant of release, the flatness of the tcrrain between the release
point and the target to a large extent determines the bombing accuracy associated
with a radar altimeter. For this reason, it is advantagcous to make a dry pass over
the target for a relative altitude update before proceeding to the attack. This, how-
ever, is only possible if the threat environment permits.

LOS angular rate sensors. In an angular rate targeting scheme, the

relative accuracy of the slant range computation is directly proportional to the rela-
tive accuracy of the angular rate measurement. A 1 percent error in measuring
angular rate therefore results in a 1 percent error in slant range. For a typical depres-
sion angular rate of 20 milliradians per sec, this accuracy translates to 0.2 milliradians
per sec, a level not easily achieved with current state-of-the-art trackers. The great
majority of angular rate sensing systems that have been built so far are of the T V
contrast tracker type. In addition to requiring three-axis stabilization, these sensors
have a response time that is scan rate limited. Owing to this last limitation, these
devices can measure angular rates only so accurately. The T V contrast tracker is
also characterized by the requirement of a single, high-contrast point to track.

Range rate (closing velocity). Determination of the closing velocity V ,

is done with the aid of a Doppler tracking device. Doppler frequencies, which are
one of the principal outputs of the radar sensor, are proportional to V,. Continuous-
wave-illumination homing systems can exploit the Doppler frequency of the target
return to generate a good estimate of V,.

External references. Each of these targeting sensors is a navigation aid,

which locates the pursuer in an electronically generated grid or coordinate system.
The rest of the targeting task centers around locating the target in this same electronic
grid or set o f coordinates. One way in which to implement this type of targeting
is to use radar ground control to direct the pursuer's flight, which requires that the
pursuer be within LOS of the ground radar. The pursuer, in order to maintain this
LOS, must fly at relatively high altitude, particularly when it is very far from the
radar. Moreover, accuracy degrades in proportion to the distance from the radar.
Other LOS positioning systems include TACAN and DME, which generally rely
on at least two ground stations and use triangulation and/or multilateration to es-
tablish the pursuer's position. T o a large extent, accuracy is determined by the
relative geometry between the pursuer and the several ground stations, also known
as geometric dilution of position (GDOP). G D O P has a greater influence on the
altitude coordinate than on the horizontal coordinates, unless the pursuer is situated
directly overhead a ground station. This is not likely to occur, however, during a
34 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

bombing run. The LORAN system is capable of obtaining coverage beyond the
LOS and at low altitudes because it uses ground-wave transmission oflow-frequency
radio waves. However, since it is only a two-dimensional positioning system,
LORAN must rely on another method such as a baro-altimeter to obtain vertical
targeting information. When GPS is operational, it will be able to position low-
flying pursuers in all three dimensions since its reference stations are satellites. With
the GPS system, each satellite can maintain LOS to almost half the earth.

2.2.2 Kinematic/Relative Geometry

Because only kinematic equations are considered in the kinematic method, the pur-
suer may be treated as a geometric point as illustrated in Figure 2-10. The corre-
sponding guidance is therefore ideal, and the character of the pursuer trajectory can
be determined approximately. Moreover, the required accelerations may be esti-
mated. The kinematics of a pursueritarget scenario are contained in the change in
time of the vector from the pursuer to the target R. In other practical applications,
the kinematics are characterized by two pairs of kinematic equations, one of which
determines the relative motion of the centers of mass of the pursuer and target in
the horizontal plane, and the other of which determines this motion in the vertical
plane. The geometry of the homing guidance in the horizontal plane is described
by the following relations:

where, for convenience of discussion in this section, the subscript true in u,,, is
omitted in this section from this point on. The nomenclature is displayed in Figure
2-10 and the measurable variables are
2 I12
R = (x? + y,) , o = tan-' y , / x , (2-3)
The closing velocity V , = - R of the pursuer and target is determined by Equation
(2-2a), while the LOS rate u is related to the parameters of motion of the pursuer
and target by Equation (2-2b). A set of analogous equations is used for the vertical
plane. Differentiation of Equation (2-2b) and substitution of Equation (2-2a) yield
R6 + 2db = - VT sin(u - yT) + V T cos(u - ~T)+T
(2-4)
+ i',,, - y) - V,,, COS(U - y)+
sin(u
Because kinematic Equations (2-2) and (2-4) are nonlinear differential equations,
they render it a difficult process to study and analyze guidance loops. The analysis
can be facilitated by linearizing the kinematic equations relative to the reference
trajectory of the pursuer, using approximation methods. With initial values given
by YT, and yo, theangles y~ and y are perturbed during the engagement by y, and
y, where y, and y,,, are very small compared to yr,, and yo, respectively. Conse-
quently, the instantaneous angles of the velocity vectors are y r = y ~ + , y, and
36 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

y = yo + yn,. A l y simde -case, which is of course linear as well, occurs

when sin a zz u , cos u = 1, s i n y,, cos y, = 1, sin y, = y,,, and cos y,, = 1.
The L O S angle in Figure 2-10 can be approximated as:

where
t, = tf - t = time to go and t f =- flight time
For analysis purposes, assuming the intercept geometry is simplified to a head-on
engagement with constant closing velocity, the range is determined from
R = Ro - VCtZZ V,(tf - t) = I/,!, (2- 5b)
where R, = V C t fThe relative velocity and acceleration are
j/r = YT - jrn = VT Y I cos Y T ~- V,n ~m cos YO (2-SC)
y, = yT- y,,, = AT" - A m y = V T j T - V,,,? (2-Sd)
where
AT^ = y ~ =. actual target lateral acceleration = V T jT cos y ~ , =
! VT jT
(2-5el
A,, = , = actual pursuer acceleration = V,,,j cos yo -- V,, j
Equations (2-5) are linear equations representing the dynamics of the engagement.
The signal that results from subtracting A,,,,, from the simulated AT, is integrated
twice to generate y,. With this information, Equation (2-Sa) can then be used to
obtain the true L O S angle a,,,,. Assuming VT and V,,, are constant, and hence V,
is constant, differentiating Equation (2-Sa) leads to the following formula for the
L O S rate u:

Rewriting the equation with the help of the geometry yields

yr = Vr&u - Vru = ~ J -
T jm = VT y, cos y ~ "- V,,, y,,, cos yo (2-7)
or in block diagram form shown in Figure 2-lla. Differentiating Equation (2-7)
yields
y, = V,t,U - 21/,u = AT,. - A,., = VT jr cos y n , - V,,,j cos yo (2-8a)
or, in a more general form,
y , = RU - ~ V , U= AT" - A"," (2-8b)
By applying the assumption made so far, Equation (2-4) can be reduced to Equation
(2-8b), while Equation (2-7) can be derived from Equation (2-2). The component
of the system for y , to I?, based on Equation (2-8b),can be modeled with an in-
 Figure 2-11 (a) Kinematic Eqi~ations
(b) Guidance Loop

tegrator contained in the positive feedback loop, as shown in Figure 2-11b. The
kinematic element, however, becomes unstable on account of the presence of posi-
tive feedback. That is, the output signal u grows continuously for a constant input
y,. A negative feedback (A,,,) loop is consequently added to the model in order to
counter the effects of the positive feedback. The guidance law, FCS, and the pursuer
dynamics and propulsion are all contained in this loop. From Equation (2-8),
AT, is given by
AT, = (Rs - 2V,)u + A ,,,, = - 2)u
V<(t,?s + A,, (2-9)

2.2.3 Targeting Sensor Dynamics

For the active RF seeker and the passive IR seeker, two gimbals (that is, azimuth
gimbal and elevation gimbal) are required. In order to describe the generalized seeker
tracking dynamics, the RF seeker with an antenna dish is used as an example. Figure
2-10 shows the essential seeker angles and geometrical quantities. As shown in
Figure 2-12, due to the presence of lags in the seeker tracking loop and radome
refraction effects, the seeker is not pointing directly at the actual target [Murray,*
19841. Figure 2-13a illustrates the tracking loop that describes the dish dynamics
in the absence of radome effects and having the seeker bandwidth w, = 117,. In the
case of small track loop time constant T , , the seeker dish rate command u; and the
LOS rate are approximately equal. Care must be taken to ensure that T, is adequately
small to be capable of tracking highly maneuvering targets, but not so small as to
induce excessive noise transmission or a stability problem. The stabilization rep-
resents a closed-loop system encompassing the dish rate feedback loop.
 MDASE of NQC Processing Chap. 2

- RADOh
ERROR

Figure 2-12 Radome Error Distorts

Boresight Error (From [Munay, 19841
with permission . t o m AACC)

Radome coupling and compensation loops. The increased miss dis-

tance associated with radar-guided air defense missiles can be blamed on radome
refraction error. Miss-distance predictions for nonlinear radome error are historically
less than that predicted for a linear radome error with constant slope [Yost et al.,
19801. As shown in Figure 2-12, the effect of radome error, a,,is to distort boresight
error measurement E. a,,which is the amount by which the direction of the apparent
Total LOS Angle
Noise v,

rsuer
laation
Gyro Acceleration
(B) Sensitivity
Figure 2-13 Seeker Block Diagram (a) Without Kadomc Effect (b) With Radomc
Effect
Sec. 2.2 Target Signal Processing 39

target and that of the true target differ, is a nonlinear function of the gimbal angle
q,. Differentiating u, with respect to u, yields the radome slope r, which is not a
constant but varies inp predictably with angle-off and from dome to dome. u, itself
depends on both pitch and yaw gimbal angle [Murray et al., 19761. Here, the effect
of u, on miss distance can be shown quite well using only a single-plane guidance
model [Murray, 19841. The radome error a, arises because RF energy passing
through the radorne to the seeker antenna is refracted by the dome material. The
magnitude of refraction during homing depends on many factors including radome
shape, fiticness ratio, thickness, material, tcnipcrature, operating frequency, and
polarization of the target 'echo signal.
~~ . Other sources of error such as standing waves
inside the dome, reflection from gimbals, receiver phasing, and processing errors
also contribute to the radome error. All of these factors differ with each flight and
therefore cannot be specifically accounted for in the computer algorithm. As a result,
the radome error magnitude can neither be precisely measured nor predicted. This
is not to say that it cannot be modeled. The most serious aspect is that the magnitude
of refraction error is also a function of where the target energy impinges the radome.
This causes in-plane and cross-plane radomc errors to become look-angle dependent
with the slopes also depending on the roll attitude of the in~erceptor.Specification
~

of radome characteristics involves the radome slope r, which is ~-

. ~. shown to be-the
main parameter in the homing loop. The most optimistic situation is o i i in which
the designer would be able to specify the manufacturing tolerances and the limits
on the allowable variations of r.
As shown in Figure 2-2, if the nonlinear kinematic guidance loop is to include
the radome error coupling loop, then the missile body pitch angle 0 must be gen-
erated by Equation (7) of Table 2-2. In addicion to being used to generate 0 in
Figure 2-2, A,,,l is also applied to both the guidance filtering and guidance algo-
rithms. In this study of targeting sensor dynamics, a PNG system is assumed where
the missile's antenna provides a measure of the target bearing u as follows. Looking
at Figure 2-10, there is an angle a d called seeker dish made by the seeker antenna's
center line with the inertial reference. The geometry tracking error without radome
error is ~ , , r f e ~ ~= ulrue- ud (see Figure 2-13a). The radar converts this error into a
voltage, which is then filtered. This is done in order to achieve the proper driving
signal that will precess the seeker antenna in the direction that acts to reduce ~,,rfe,,
to zero. The seeker dish angle and the LOS angle are equal in the case the seeker
tracks the target precisely. However, the actual angle tracking error E = ~ ~ ~ +f i . ~
u, + v, (see Figure 2-13b, v, = measurement noise) is the angle between the
apparent target LOS and the seeker center line measured by the gimballed seeker
dish. The seeker center line is positioned by the executive computer system and
periodically updated based on the reconstructed LOS angle 6. The pitch angle 0,
measured by the IRU, has added to it the actual gimbal angle u2measured by the
gimballed pickoff. This provides UJ (that is, ud = 0 + a,), which is then added to
E to obtain the measured LOS angle u as follows:

u = e + ud = brmr+ u, + = LOS angle measurement (2-10)

40 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

where the apparent LOS angle u as seen by the homing eye is equal to the true LOS
angle plus the aberration angle u,, as shown in Figure 2-10. In order to simplify
the analysis here, it is assumed that u, is a linear function of the gimbal angle u,
such that

Making a correction to include radome effects in Equation (2-lo), the tracking error
measurement (see Figure 2-10) then becomes

-
- ~ r , e - e - ~ g + ~ r + V , = ~ ~ - u , + ~ , + ~ ,

Equation (2-11) is substituted into Equation (2-12) to yield

The angular relationship of Equation (2-13) and the dish dynamics from Figure 2-
13a are employed to develop a seeker block diagram with radome effects shown in
Figure 2-13b. Since the radome-induced error here depends not only on the LOS
angle but also on 0 as well, 0 is used in the radome compensation algorithms for
stabilizing the (negative) radome error slope. T o enlarge the stability region for the
positive error slope and for cross-plane coupling slopes, the radome compensation
algorithm is inserted at the output rather than the input side of the guidance pro-
cessing algorithms [Yueh, 1983(a); Yueh and Lin, 1984, 1985(a)]. Integrating 0 to
get 0, the latter quantity is then multiplied by the radome error r and used in the
radome coupling block of Figure 2-2 to compute the LOS angle measurement.
Combining Equations (2-10) and (2-ll), another simplified equation that can be
used to calculate the LOS angle measurement is

where a,,,,,is given by Equation (2-5a). The look angle is defined as

Assuming radome aberration error u, is explicitly dependent on the look angle U L ,

then the time derivative of the measured LOS [Equation (2-lo)] to the first-order
linearization approximation can be written as

where the radome local slope is

The importance of the seeker as a missile subsystem becomes evident when one
considers what it must be able to do. The seeker must be able to track a target,
remain spatially stabilized or go into a search mode if target track is lost, and measure
Sec. 2.2 Target Signal Processing 41

a guidance signal. Most seekers have a stabilization loop (see Figure 2-13b) to isolate
body rotations and track loop to maintain the seeker axis along the missile-target
direction. These loops, in conjunction with the appropriate signal processing, permit
the measurement of the guidance signal. The knowledge of the seeker dynamics
together with information about the radome characteristics and noise sources would
be required to develop a detailed model of this measurement process. In order for
the tracking and stabilization functions to work properly, the seeker slew-rate ca-
pability for a BTT missile must be compatible with thc missile's banking motion,
being ablc to deal with potctltially large look angles. It is important also to assess
the impact of banking maneuvers on track loop requirements. A detailed seeker
analysis must include modeling of the inertial coupling between the two seeker
channels and the effects of friction. When analyzing missile banking maneuvers, one
must also consider the effects of polarization. In the case of a semiactive, linearly
polarized seeker with linearly polarized radiation, the seeker gain becomes zero when
the polarizations are 90 deg out of phase. This situation can arise, for example, when
the missile undergoes a 90-dcg bank. Also, as the relative polarization of the seeker
and incoming radiation change, there can be serious problems having to do with
changes in radome aberration error. That is, if the radome is designed for a particular
polarization, a change in this angle may produce larger aberration errors. An active
seeker may also be subject to polarization effects when used against a large target
such as a ship, for example. If the target's reflectivity is a function of the signal's
polarization, the aim point may be altered as the missile banks. Should the guidance
system mistakenly interpret this rapid change in aim point as a spike in the LOS
rate, it may cause the missile to miss the target [Riedel, 19801

Target tracker (seeker) modeling. The LOS rate u is corrupted by

bias ub and gyro sensitivity as shown in Figure 2-2. It is convenient at this point
to consider the tracking loop time constant T,, the stabilization loop gain K,, and
the gyro sensitivity gain K?,as shown in Figure 2-13b. In general, if the tracking
loop time constant T, is too large, the seeker will be unable to track highly maneu-
vering targets. If, on the other hand, this constant is too small, there will be problems
associated with excessive noise transmission and, hence, a stability problem. T h e
tracking loop time constant must therefore be chosen somewhere between these
two limiting values. he stabilization loop gain K, which is the loop crossover
frequency should be large (that is, perfect seeker dynamics) so as to speed up the
guidance system, with a practical upper bound placed on it so as to stabilize the
seeker well. Because it will have almost no influence on the seeker track loop dy-
namics if K, is large, the seeker dynamics can be approximated by
Without radome effect (see Fig. 2-13a) u'dlu = W,S/(S w,) + (2- 16)
With radome effect (see Fig. 2-13b) u'd = [(I + r)u,,, - re] w,/(s + w,)
that is, a,,,, is passed through a target tracker (for example, seeker), composed of
a differentiator followed by a first-order lag, to produce a seeker dish rate command
which is approximately the LOS rate I?.
42 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

Tracking error guidance system seeker model. The transfer func-

tion of the seeker as it appears in Equation (2-16) is more representative of a tracking
error guidance system shown in Figure 2-13b. Figure 2-14a illustrates a typical
tracking error guidance seeker loop in which an error signal is produced by the
angle error detector and is proportional to the misalignment of measured target
angular tracking error E. This error signal'is then input to a proportional plus integral
amplifier whose transfer function is

A rate gyro feedback must be included in the design in order to improve the stability
margin in the Nyquist sense and to help reject outside disturbances [Garnell, 19801.
The output of gimbal dynamics plus pitch rate 8 is the antenna (dish) rate ed in
body coordinates, and, since the feedback is defined as dish angle and not rate, the

Total LOS
Angle Noise
v- Anele Error Amalifier Power

Rate Gym 1

-,---~
Sensitivity
(B)
Figure 2-14 (a) Typical Tracking Error Guidance Seeker Loop (b) LOS Rate Guid-
ance System Seeker Model
Sec. 2.2 Target Slgnal Rocesslng 43

loop is closed by the implied integration of u d . An evaluation is now made of the

quantitics T I and K I K2K3 which fall under the designer's control. The generalized
tracking guidancc system seeker model is illustrated in Figure 2-13b in which the
tracking loop time constant T, is proportional to the torque loop gain TI of the
seeker. The PNG guidance system transfer function is approximated by
u = V [ ( + T , s ) ( ~ + TJ)] (3-17b)

LOS rate guidance system seeker model. An alternative to the track-

ing error guidance system sccker model is the LOS rate guidancc system seeker
model which measures LOS rate u. The target is tracked by the seeker antenna
assembly, which is stabilized with respect to missile body motion. The measured
LOS rate is given by the sum of the time derivative of the angular tracking error
E and the antenna rotation rate u d throughout Equation (2-10). That is,

Thus, to obtain a measurement of u, the signal processor provides i ( s u,) and

seeker-mounted rate gyros provide u d . The measured LOS rate u is actually very
close to the geometric u,,,,. There are roll-stabilized radar seekers that generate the
LOS rate u for each axis using Equation (2-183). While it can be shown that the
measurement of u becomes independent of the seeker track loop dynamics under
this operation, it is also true that this method may lead to noise amplification owing
to the process of differentiation. Moreover, the differentiation is electronic and is
performed on a signal measured in seeker coordinates. The process of generating
u using Equation (2-18a) together with all seeker low-frequency signal processing
must be examined in the context of being suitable when the missile and seeker cease
to be roll stabilized, but can bank at a rate of a few hundred degrees per second. A
LOS rate guidance system seeker model is presented in Figure 2-14b. The PNG
system transfer function is approximated by

Parasitic feedbacks. As illustrated in Figures 2-2 and 2-13b, body-

rotation rates always have the effect of corrupting LOS rate measurements. Imperfect
sensor stabilization or unmatched signal processing gains are only two factors that
may act to produce undesirable perturbations on the LOS rate. A parasitic loop may
develop in which body-rate induced perturbations on the guidance signal cause a
perturbation in the commanded and achieved accelerations and, hence, additional
body rate. The result of this situation is that the system can become unstable and
may suffer degraded performance [Riedel, 19801. Both the body rate and body
acceleration are parasitic feedbacks, owing to the necessity of an aerodynamic missile
to pitch to an angle of attack to be able to maneuver. Because of the radome refraction
effects, the autopilot and seeker dynamics are coupled through the missile body-
rate feedback signal. This creates an attitude feedback loop in which the missile
responds to a target LOS change by maneuvering. The resulting rotation of the
44 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

missile body causes an apparent additional change in the LOS angle, which closes
the loop. This feedback increases as the altitude increases. When the values o f the
radome slope I. are large, they represent the worst effect of an undesirable feedback
path through the gimbal angle as shown in Equation (2-13). Beside the radome
effects, the stabilization loop is fed with a false angular rate due to missile maneuvers.
The gyro acceleration sensitivity drift produces a direct unwanted feedback path
with a gain K, from the achieved acceleration to the measured antenna rate in space.
If the gyro mechanism is not perfectly balanced about the output axis, any linear
acceleration normal to that axis to which the gyro is subjected will cause an erroneous
rate signal to be generated. Such a signal will result in a tracking error that in turn
commands an additional lateral acceleration to close the loop. This effect was first
brought to light during a flight test in which the missile flew a helical path to an
excessive miss distance. After conducting an analysis, improved mass balance pro-
cedures were put into effect. In addition, the gyro was mounted in a direction that
minimized the miss-distance impact [Fossier, 19841. The preceding two parasitic
feedbacks become important at high closing velocities occurring in short-range or
high-altitude flights. Thus, the design of the seeker must take into account the
seeker's own performance characteristics and provide sufficient stability margins to
handle unwanted feedback paths.
As will be shown later in Examples 3-3 and 2-4, the effect of radome error
feedback on the control system is determined by the sign of the radome error. The
effect of a degenerative error (positive), which is one that tends to reduce the input
LOS rate, is to slow the system response and to reduce the autopilot's stability
margin. A regenerative (negative) error may bring about guidance instability at very
low frequency. Although both can result in increased miss distance, a regenerative
error is of greater concern inasmuch as low-frequency oscillations are characterized
by large displacements of thc missile. In a situation somewhat similar to what occurs
with the radome error, a feedback loop is formed by in~perfectionsin the antenna
stabilization system (sec Figure 2-13b). This causes a change in the antenna direction
as the missile body attitude, or missile acceleration, changes. In early systems. the
stabilization loop consisted of rate gyros mounted on thc back of the antenna, with
their outputs electronically integrated to drive a hydraulically actuated gimbal sys-
tem. Owing to the servo's finitc frcqucncy response, the antenna is unable to kccp
perfectly stationary for body motions a t frcqucncies of primary concern, and the
resulting motion gcncratcs a borcsight error cquivalcnt to that caused by positivc
radon~eslopc. One aspcct of the solution to this problem involved improving thc
hydraulic valve rcsponsc so that the head stabilization loop could be closed to a high
enough frcqucncy to rcducc this effect to acceptable icvcls.
Another aspect of thc solution was clcctronic in nature and centered around
the closed-out frequcncy of the stabilization loop. It was realized that this frequency
mattcrcd only to the extent that it affects thc gain in the stabilization loop at fre-
quencics of interest, typically 1 to 3 Hz, and that it could bc increased by changing
the elcctronic integrator to provide a - 2 slopc instcad of a - 1 slopc, keeping in
mind loop stability considerations. The resemblance to radome slope was brought
into grcatcr focus when it was discovcred that purposely limiting the DC gain of
 Sec. 2.3 NGC System Deslgn and Analysk 45

the stabilization loop, as opposed to allowing perfect integration of the rate gyro,
created the same cffect as a positive radome slope. Thus, one could compensate for
the negative radome slope at the very low frequencies that produced large miss
distances. A rather serious accuracy problem was alleviated by the implementation
of this simple compensation scheme. Chapter 8.4.3 presents the design cquations
for PNG with thc previously-mentioned parasitic feedback. Thc cffect of body
bending is yet another type of parasitic feedback. In contrast to bcing a separate
parasitic loop, this cffect is simply a high-frequency autopilot instability in which
body bcnding is detected by the autopilot as a motion ofthe missile. In early systems,
the autopilot rate gyros were mounted as closely as possible to the nonrotational
point for the first bending mode. This in conjunction with the electronic filtering
employed made it possible to avoid autopilot instability [Fossier, 19841. Details of
this structural vibration control are presented in Book 3.

2.3 NGC SYSTEM DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

The N G C analyst works with all members of the design team. He or she must be
able to work from simple to very complex analyses and simulations, and to provide
preliminary and firm requirements and designs.
2.3.1 Guidance FilteringlProcessing

Simplified pursuer dynamics. A functional block diagram of the PNG

kinematic loop is shown in Figure 2-13a with the guidance computer defined pre-
viously in Figure 2-6. Seeker dynamics and corruption of the LOS rates due to
body motion coupling through the radome are modeled in Figures 2-lja(iii) and
2-15a(iv).
Guidance Jdnematic loop. Consider the block diagram corresponding
to Figure 2-15b which is simplified from Figure 2-2. The target position mea-
surement is
"' = Yr + Yg (2- 19)
where y , corresponds to the target maneuver, which is generally considered as a
random variable, and y, is the target glint/scintillation noise (generated by the input
equivalent radar noise), which is a property of target radar return signal and arises
from sources that physically enter the system.
Noise inputs. The two target noise inputs in Figure 2-15b are denoted
by y , and U ~ (angle
N noise of the tracker). These noises, which corrupt the obser-
vation, induce miss distance, and impact pursuer acceleration requirements, are as-
sumed to be uncorrelated white-noise processes. In Figures 2-15b and 2-2, u ~ ~ ( t )
is equal to u,,,(t) + u f ( t ) + uc(t).Represented as a linear displacement at the target,
y , has a PSD of +,, and, like miss distance, is divided by rhe range to become an
angular glint noise u,,i,,, with PSD
 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

a) Simplified P u r s ~ Dynamics
r
TNE U S Guidance & N D ~ Guidance Conlpuvr FCS
Angle Gs ('1 , ($1
G Air+c & Pmpukion
i) I Total LOS Angle N o i s
I I
I *kc, Dirh I
qne I Ratc Command
I b;l-a I

Pursuer mnamicr

Simplified
Punuer D y o a k
(See F i e a)

Figure 2-15 (a) Sirnplificd I'ursuer Ilynarnics (h) Trajectory Ilynarnics Model (c)
Equivalent Trajectory Dynamics Model

to be input to the scckcr. It is pointed out here that, evcn under the assumption o f
stationary scintillation noisc at the target, this becomes nonstationary at the seeker
by virtue of division by R ( t ) . Target scintillation is commonly assumed to be aptly
represented as stationary band-limited noise, thc amplitude and bandwidth being
functions of the physical dimensions and motion of thc target. Inasmuch as band-
Sec. 2.3 NGC System DesIgn and Analysis 47

limited noise and filtered white noise possess the same statistical properties, the
simulation can be performed by introducing a simple lag filter with ~ C L T= l/wg
as a correlation time constant between w, and y , as shown in Figure 2-2. The PSD
of y , is
+,\. = 27CLTrCLT, ~ C L T= glint noise variance (2-2Ob)

The filter was excluded in Figure 2-15b as a matter of simplicity because it falls
outside thc homing loop and has no effect on the system adjoint [Peterson, 19611.
The net return signal from a target with many radar reflectors can be modeled as
a movement of the apparent radar target position. It is typically modeled as a Gaus-
sian random variable only with zero mean and variance rcLT. that is,

where (r~gET)is 112 to 118 the target's dimension perpendicular to the LOS. That
IS, rg;T = WJa, where a = 5 is the rule o f thumb and can vary between 2 a n d 8
according to data, and W , is the wing span of the target [Alpert, 19881. Range-
independent noise (KIN) uf is the noise inherent in the receiver. It is independent
of target return power and is caused by many sources, only some of which include
signal processing effects, cross polarization of returns, quantization effects, and gim-
bal servo drive inaccuracies. uf is modeled as

of - iV(0, rf) with equivalent white RIN PSD +f = 2?frf (2-20d)

where ~f is the RIN correlation time constant. Thermal noise a,,,is the receiver
noise, which is a function of the strength of the target return, and hence the signal-
to-noise ratio. u,,, is modeled as
u,,,- N(0, r,,) with equivalent white receiver noise PSD +,,, = 27,,r,,, (2-20e)
where T,,, is the correlation time constant of u,,,and r,, is the range-dependent noise
variance governed by
(Semiactive) ~,,,sA = r,,,~(RIRO)', (Active) r , , ~ = r,,~ ( R I R o ) ~ (2-200
where Ro is referred to as the target-to-pursuer reference range. The clutter noise
u, is modeled as

u, - N(0, r,) with equivalent white clutter noise PSD +, = 2~,r, (2-20g)
where 7, is the correlation time constant of a,. Glint noise, receiver noise, and RIN
are the important contributions to tracking accuracy when radar is used. Decreasing
the range to go increases the glint noise but decreases the receiver noise. The variance
~ T Nand the spectral input + T N for the angle noise arNare determined by the
characteristics of the seeker and are of the following forms, respectively:
48 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

The total LOS angle measurement noise is then

Vm = UTN + uglinr = urn + uf f uc + Ug*llittr (2-22)
The angle noise variance and spectral input are of the following forms:
v, = v,,, + rf + r, + rCLTIRZ

In addition, the tracker noise, or.., can be added to target position noise, y,, so
that the measurement equation is modified from Equation (2-19) as:
z(t) = y T +n = target position measurement (2-24)
where n = target position noise = o , R = y, + R U T N , and the variance and PSD
of n are of the following forms, respectively: '

r,, = YTN R2 + YCLT = [rm + r, + v , ] R 2 + ICLT

(2-25)
+tt= ~ T , v R+~ 4 s = [@r,z + 4f f +c]R2 +
Thus, Figure 2-15b has been modified to become equivalent to Figure 2-15c.
Nonnoise inputs. The initial condition at the start of homing (launch,
transient, and so on) is the nonnoise inputs to the system. The initial seeker error
and the initial turning rate of the missile are both assumed to be constant random
variables. In certain instances, either of these two errors may be zero. For example,
the seeker initial error input becomes zero if the seeker is lockcd on and settled out
at the start of homing. Similarly, the initial turning rate input becomes zero if the
missile is not maneuvering when homing begins. Other quantities assumed to be
constant random variables include initial heading error and detcrn~inistictarget ma-
neuvering inputs [Peterson, 19611.
NGC system design requirements and design considerations.
Consider the possibility of choosing a guidance and control law such that the system
within the dotted box of Figure 2-1% looks like a guidance filter. Then, pursuer
lateral position output y,,, is controlled by the guidance computer and FCS to min-
imize E [ ( ~ -T y , ) T ( y T - Y , ) ] , that is, minimum miss. The guidance and control
system must get the missile close enough to kill the target when the warhead ex-
plodes. Therefore, an appropriate measure of guidance performance is miss distance.
which is defined as the minimum distance between the missile and target. Besides
minimizing miss, other goals that the NGC system must attempt to accomplish
include maximizing the following: the range of operating conditions, the allowable
environmental disturbances, the reliability, and the effectiveness. At the same time,
the N G C system must be designed so that both cost and sensitivity to target tactics
are minimized. When viewed from the standpoint of meeting these objectives, the
guidance and control problem becomcs a matter of designing a compensation filter
that optimizes system performance with respect to accuracy, stability, speed of
response, and external or environmental disturbances. A high relative stability is
Sec. 2.3 NGC System Deslgn and Analysls 49

measured in terms of good gain and phase margins. Concerning speed o f response,
the system must be suitably fast so as to wipe out the nonnoise inputs with small
guidance time constant T,,. As for environmental disturbances, the filter must be
able to filter whatever noise inputs arc present to acceptable levels [Axelband, 19861.

Advanced multivariable control system design. T o begin with, con-

sider Figure 2-16 which describes a standard procedure for designing a robust,
integrated control law (see Books 3, 4, and 5 of the series). After a nonlincar simu-
lation modcl is developed and the requirements for robustness and performance are
determined, the results are used to conduct an open-loop analysis. As shown in
Book 1 of the series, the purpose of the open-loop analysis is to determine the
significant dynamic characteristics and interactions of the airframe, propulsion, and
control surfaces. It consists of nonlinear and linear simulation, as well as stability,
covariance, observability, controllability, and frequency response analyses. The re-
sults of these analyses are used to define the design model. Once the design model
is defined, control law synthesis can be performed to develop control law algorithms.
Control law synthesis consists of: (1) feedforward controller design to enhance com-
mand response; (2) feedback controller design to satisfy stability and robustness
requirements; and (3) controller order reduction to minimize implementation com-
plexity. These results are then used to conduct closed-loop analysis which, as Figure
2-16 shows, also considers directly robustness and performance requirements. The
closed-loop analysis, which makes use of the control law combined with the open-
loop simulation model, consists of nonliner and linear simulation, as well as stability,
covariance, and robustness analyses. This is done to ensure that the control law

Model helupmnent
' Wind tunnel test
L CFD. CSM
* Physical laws
Design Specifieatim .
Military speciliatiow
* Flyingqualities
Stability requirements 4--
SyPtem identification M i u distance 4-
'
Model validillim Performance
I
Open L m p Analysh
Design model
c Model reduction
* System limitation
C
Conlml Syslem D e i g n
,

CACSD
Advanced guidanceand control laws
'Design knowledge h w

Simulation and Performance Evaluation

l i m e and frequency responses
I.inearand nonlinear Simulatim

Implcmentatia,
Fast prototype Figure 2-16 Robust Integrated
Envirol~mmlled
Control Law Design Procedure
50 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

design satisfies control functional requirements. If these requirements are not ade-
quately met, it may happen that further open-loop analysis is required. However,
it may be that the algorithms developed in the control law synthesis stage simply
need to be refined, in which case the design model does not have to be altered.
Some of the methods available for advanced multivariable control law design are
shown in Book 3 of the series.

Classical versus modem guidance and control. As shown in Figs.

2-6 and 2-17a, low-pass filters attenuate the noise component of the sensor signal,
given the frequency characteristics of target signal and noise. Also, as can be seen
from Figure 2-17a, separation principle allows one to design the optimal estimator
and the advanced guidance law independently. Optimal estimators such as Kalman
filters ideally separate the target signal from the noise by using information about
target (and pursuer) dynamics and noise covariances. The objective of an optimal
estimator is to provide accurate estimates of all states and model parameters required
for the advanced guidance law without significantly increasing the sensor require-
ments (and therefore cost). The advanced guidance law provides the optimal steering
commands assuming a noise-free environment. Figure 2-17b is a functional com-
parison of how the current modern approach differs from the classical approach to
missile guidance and control. Classical approaches have become firmly entrenched
in guided missile designs because they worked well in the rather benign environment
of past target engagements and were easily implemented with analog circuitry.
Because of such precedence, missile designers have often tried to satisfy the increased
performance requirements of modern missiles by increasing the complexity of as-
sociated hardware such as seekers, gyros, accelerometers, airframes, and engines.
Improving performance nearly always involves a trade-off between more sophis-
ticated hardware or more sophisticated software. While such approaches in many
cases have improved performance, the increased hardware sophistication almost
always results in increased costs. In fact, the resulting cost has often been so high
that the systems either were never developed for operational use or were purchased
in small quantities [Gonzalez, 1979(a), (b)].
In spite of many classical terminal guidance and control laws which are still
being used for tactical missiles, each characterized by varying degrees of perfor-
mance, complexity, and seeker-sensor requirements, the increascd accuracy re-
quirements and morc dynamic tactics of modern warfare render contemporary guid-
ance and control laws unsatisfactory in many applications. Whilc many modern
guidance and control system des~gntechniques have yiclded better solutions than
those obta~nedfrom a classical approach, these remain nevertheless overly complex
and are not well undcrstood by industry as a whole. As a result, advanced guidance
and control sysfetn design, as extensively discussed in this book, is an ideal approach
which combines the most attractive features of both classical and modern guidance
and control system design techniques. This advanced approach, coupled with the
advent of new theoretical methods and low-costlhigh-speed microprocessing tech-
niques, makes it possible to provide better effectiveness, reliability, tremendous
increases in missile performance, and greater leeway in other subsystem performance
for the same or less power, weight, and cost.
 See. 2.3 NOC System Design and Analysls

Xl'W
c
LINEONIOW1 U T E

C Low C A N
FILTER
FILTERED LINEOF.
LlOn M T Z

C CRWAV
LAW
KCELERATIW
COMMAND
-

FILTERED LlNEOFalOHT
nus rson~orr~~

-
OTHER MTE
SENSORS EIIIMATU
LINEOFJIOHT RAT

XltW
L1 u
/L=. bDVU(CED
OUlOANCE
U X E6ETlER
LERATIW
COYUAND

EITIMATOR U W

TARGET

C L W K A L LIIROhCH

NOISE OUIDANCE
SEEKER LAW AUTOPILOT AIRFRAME
~mo-wAv)

MISSILE
KINEMATICS

TARGET
KINEMATICS

ESTIMATOR

MISSILE
KINEMATICS

Figure 2-17 Classical vs. Modern Guidance and Control (a) Guidance Filtering and Pro-
cessing (b) Functional Comparison ( ( a ) j o r n [Conzalez, 1979(b)] withpennissionjom AGARD
( b j j o m [Conzalez, 1979(a)], CC 1979 IEEE)
52 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

2.3.2 NGC Stability and Performance Analysis

The guidance analysis model shown in all parts of Figure 2-15 is composed of
elements representing the homing kinematics plus other systems that affect the hom-
ing guidance dynamics. The root-locus method and frequency response analysis can
be applied to guidance system analysis. Performance analysis techniques are used
to evaluate the NGC performance. The guidance system transfer function from a,,,,
to A,,, is shown in Figure 2-15a. The stability analysis pertains only to the guidance
system transfer function, whereas the miss-distance analysis will apply to the entire
homing loop of Figure 2-15b. The homing loop shown in Figure 2-15b can be
used to obtain a clear understanding of the requirements of an analysis model, and
to obtain quantitative comparisons of miss distance as a function of the significant
guidance system paran~eters.Such information is then used to evaluate the effects
of N G C parameters on missile performance. Miss distance is brought about by the
-

dynamics of the guidance system transfer function, the simplest representation for
which is shown to be a fifth-order binomial [Nesline and Zarchan, 1984(a)]. The
desir.ed/actual effective navigation ratio A, which varies due to changes in the flight
condition, is one major determinant of homing system performance. Another major
determinant of homing performance is the guidance system tinte constant T,, which is
the sum of system constants. The ejfertivegrridance systenl titne constant, T;, is defined
as the guidance system time constant with radome effect. Examples 2-3 through
2-5 later will discuss radome error and its severity on the guidance and control
responsiveness of homing missiles. As will be shown in Example 2-4, the overall
system stability needs to be studied before computing the time constant of the FCS
because the timc constant is the major factor that affects the miss distance. The trend
of the effect of cach feedback loop on the linear, time-\.arying gain systcm is clarified
by the preceding discussion using root locus. The adjoint simulation is required
because all the transient behavior in the miss-distancc response cannot bc predicted
by only the simple root structure. The most efficient method of parametric study
can be realized through a combination of the root-locus and the adjoint simulation
techniques. The former is initially used to idcntify the region of parameters for
system stability, while the lattcr is used to check thc conclusions dcrived from the
root-locus study, concentrating on the optimum choice of N G C gains.

Example 2-1: Guidance kinematic loop stability analysis. A vcry

good guidancc stability analysis has already bccn put forth prcviously in Book 1 of
thc scrics. Thc opcn-loop phase and gain frcqucncy rcsponsc charactcristics arc gcn-
eratcd so that the stability charactcristics of thc guidance kincrnatic loop can be
examincd. Once specific values arc assigned to cach paramctcr, the contribution to
this responsc by the linear clcmcnts in this loop arc easily evaluatcd. The opcn-loop
transfer function in Figurc 2-l5b with the simplified pursucr dynamics defined in
Figurc 2- 15a(i) is

Substituting jo for s in Equation (2-26) for sinusoidal input yields for magnitudc
Sec. 2.3 NGC System Deslgn and Analysls 53

and phase

where GA(w) is the autopilot gain and L$A(o) is the autopilot phase response.
Although the linear mode of the autopilot can easily be solvcd, it is difficult to
analytically obtain the contribution to this response by the nonlinear autopilot. Thus,
the nonlinear autopilot phase and gain characteristics are obtained through computer
simulation.

Example 2-2: Comparison of statistical digital simulation meth-

ods. This example begins with the simplified model of an intercept homing loop
shown in Figures 2-15a(ii) and 2-15b. The FCS and the airframe and propulsion
dynamics are approximately represented by a single tag (7, = llw,) transfer function
CA(S) = A,,lu, = 1/(7,s + 1) (although a second-order representation seems more
reasonable) to include their effects in the guidance gains. The guidance system trans-
fer function without radome effect is A,,lu = AV, s/(l + ~ ~ where ~ 5 T) , = T, +
7, + T,. Included in this simplified model are: (1) effective navigation ratio A =
3; (2) closing velocity V, = 3,000 ftlsec; (3) pursuer velocity V,, = 2,300 ftlsec; (4)
7, = l / w y = 0.1 sec; (5) seeker tracking time constant 7, = l/w, = 0.05 sec; (6)
noise filter bandwidth k = l / i , = 10 radlsec; and (7) flight time t f = 3 sec [Zarchan,
1979(a) & 19881. The target maneuver model is assumed to be a Poisson jinking
maneuver shown later in Figure 2-21e where B = RMS target acceleration = 161
ft/sec2, and A, = the target maneuver bandwidth = 0.2 sec-'. The PSD of the
white glint noise u, and the white range-independent fading noise uy are denoted
by +, = 4 (ft2/Hz) and +f = 1 x 10-16 (rad2/Hz), respectively. This example is
used in Chapter 3 to demonstrate the utility of each of the performance analysis
techniques via digital simulation.

Example 2-3: Radome error-induced miss-distance predictions.

Following Example 2-2 and Figures 2-15a(iii) and 2-15b, included in this simplified
model are: (1) effective navigation ratio A = 3.5; (2) closing velocity V, = 4,500
ftlsec; (3) pursuer velocity V, = 2,500 ft/sec; (4) T, = l / o , = 0.45 sec; (5) seeker
tracking time constant T, = l/w, = 0.1 sec; (6) T, = l l k = 0 sec infinity bandwidth;
(7) aerodynamic turning rate constant T , = 2 sec; (8) flight time tf = 5 sec. The
model developed by Murray [I9841 and presented here begins with the fact that
system disturbances that cause miss distance result also in gimbal angle motion. The
effective slopes r are reduced by this motion, while the effective noise q is increased.
This example, largely fdllowing the excellent article by Murray [1984], looks at a
linear radome error model that spans the gap between nonlinear and linear radome
error miss-distance predictions. Included in this model are an effective slope and an
effective noise variance. Gimbal angle motion, which is a function of guidance
system disturbances such as target maneuver and range-independent noise (RIN),
determines the effective slope and effective noise. In the treatment presented here,
54 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

analytical expressions for effective slope and effective noise are derived for a sinu-
soidal radome error. The guidance system transfer function with radome effect is:
7; = effecti4e guidance system constant
'2
4 rn =
A' Vcs =1 + ~ A V / V , ) ' ( T T , ) I I (+~ A V V (2-28)
U l + Tis ' A! = A
= effective navigation ratio
1 + rAV,/V,
where T~ = T, + +
T, T~ Figure 2-15a(iii) illustrates how the radome slope changes
the missile system dynamics. The radome slope r appears twice in A,,,/u. A' is
altered in terms of r effect by a factor of 1 over the quantity 1 + rAV,/V,,. For
positive radome slope, A' is reduced and the response time of the system is increased,
the effect of which is to increase the miss distance due to target maneuver. T h e
opposite occurs for negative radome slope, the result of which is to increase the
effect of A' and thereby increase the miss distance due to RIN [Fossier and Hall,
19671. System damping is reduced in the case of a negative radome error when
higher-order terms are concerned. Figure 2-18a shows a typical miss-distance sen-
sitivity to r. The figure shows that there exists a negative threshold value of r, below
which miss rapidly escalates. This value depends on the flight condition through
a/-$ and on the control system design through the value of T,. Given the variation
of a/-$with altitude, the value of T, must be increased appropriately so as to maintain
acceptable performance [Fossier, 19841. The radome slope r also enters in the de-
nominator of Arn,lu, where the time constant (s coefficient) T; is modified by a
factor of r T,A V,/ V,,,. The effect of a positive r is to increase 7i, thereby increasing
the miss distance due to target maneuver. A negative r., if it is sufficiently large,
will cause T: to go negative, resulting in an unstable guidance system. The cffect of
r on 7; is of greater concern at high altitude where T , is large. Given the parameter
values, the missile system in Figures 2-lja(iii) and 2-15b gocs unstable for r =
-0.045. This second-order missile system remains stable for all values of positivc
r, a fact whlch is not significant for the following reason. By adding to the model
a typical third-order autopilot as will be given later in Examples 2-4 and 2-5,
together with a first-order noise filter, r = 0.095 is required for missile system
instability. However, fcr positive slope values much less than 0.095, the miss dis-
tance due to target maneuver becomes unduly high.

Miss due to radome slope. Target maneuver and RIN are thc two dis-
turbanccs evaluated. As Figure 2-18b shows, the miss distance increases with ra-

Figure 2-18 (a) Representative Effect of Radome Boresight Error Slope on Miss Distance
(b) Miss Increases with Radonie Slope (c) Miss Is Less with l'eriodic Radoinc (d) Target
Maneuver Miss Is Less with Periodic lladome (e) Gimbal Angle Motion Deterniines Effective
Slope and Effective Noise (f) Target Maneuver and Noise Cause Gimbal Angle Motion (g)
Effective Slopes and Effective Noise Are Derived by Mininiizing Mean Square Error ((aJ,fmitr
/Fossirr, 1984/, 8 1984 AIAA (h)-(g) jam IMuwoy, 19841 urith permissiotr j o m A A C C )
 .- ~

89 CONSTANT SLWE I?
8.

4.

8 2.
5
0.

.2.

-4.
'
1 2 3 4 d
TARGET MANEUVERTIME TOGO i rl
3 9 TARGET MANEUVER
7. mred RANGE INDEPENDENT NOISE
(D)

TOTAL

------
.O.W .0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
RADOME SLOPE

SINUSOIDAL q = r, sin (+(up *))

RADOME
ERROR:

- -
-
TARGET
MANEUVER:

- ...- - . .-
RAWME
RANGE
0, I INDEPENDENT
!0.08.o.m - 0 . ' ~ .o.b2 o 0.b2 0.04 0.05 0.08 NOISE:
MAXIMUM RADOME SLOPE
(C) t

Effective Slope for

Target Maneuver Effective
b
Bias
Gimbal Angle Due to
Target Manewer

Gimbal Angle Due to

Range Independent Noise Oggf
Effec~iveSlope for
Range Independent Noise
56 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

dome slope. This miss due to target maneuver increases with positive slope, whereas
the miss due to RIN increases with negative slope. For this example, the initiation
time of the 3-g step target maneuver is uniformly distributed with 25 samples over
the 5-sec terminal flight time. The amplitude standard deviation of the RIN is 2
mrad within a bandwidth of 1.8 radfsec (7 = 0.55 sec). In Figure 2-18b, the RMS
value for zero radome slope is 1.0 because all RMS miss distances in this example
are normalized by the same factor.

Miss i s less with periodic radome. Actual radome is periodic with

gimbal angle [Murray, 19841. As shown in Figure 2-18c, periodic radome error
results in smaller miss distance than occurs with constant maximum radome slope.
The figure shows that miss is significantly reduced for a sinusoidal radome error
with a 30-deg period. Specifically, the miss distance due to target maneuver is less
for a periodic radome error. Miss distance is plotted against target maneuver time
in Figure 2-18d for three types of radome error. The first corresponds to r = 0,
the second to r = - 0.045, and the third to a 30-deg period sinusoidal radome with
a maximum slope of 1 0.045 1. At the initiation time of the target maneuver, the
gimbal angle is such that the radome slope has the maximum negative value of
-0.045. While the RMS target-induced miss is 0.7 for r = 0, it is only slightly
higher with a value of 1.1 for the case of the 30-deg period sinusoidal radome with
a 10.045 1 maximum slope. These ~ a l u e scan be compared with the RMS target-
induced miss for the case of constant -0.045 radorne slope, which is much higher
at 3.4. Actually, this adjoint continues to increase with increasing flight time owing
to the fact that the missile system is marginally stable for r = -0.043.

Effective slope and effective noise. As demonstrated in Figure 2-18e,

the effective slope and effective noise of a radonle error are determined by gimbal
angle motion. In this figure, the effective slope r due to gimbal angle motion is less
than the maximum slope. The difference between the nonlinear radome error, u,,
and the effective slope approximation, r u,, gives the effective noise, q. Gimbal
angle motion is brought about as a result of missile system disturbances such as
target maneuver and RIN. Gimbal angle motion, particularly that component which
owes itself to target maneuver, can be a substantial fraction of a radome error. This
example looks at a sinusoidal radome error, target maneuver, and RIN disturbances
as shown in Figure 2-18f. The sinusoidal radome is characterizcd by amplitude,
period, and phase of ro, P, and @, respectively. The gimbal angle is incremented
as a rcsult of target maneuver by the value u,l over the flight time. A uniform
distribution with a (1/3)"2u,,/2 standard deviation is assumed. Figure 2-18g shows
the two effective slopes, one for each of the two nlissile system disturbances. Min-
imizing the mean-square error, q, yields
r~ = ur(aE)* u ~ ~ l ( u , ~ ~ l l 2r, ) ,= u,(ux) * ~,~f14. (1-29)
02 = u,Z - r+u:I/12 - r34, b =i
Ssc. 2.3 NGC System Design and Analysls 57

Evaluating Equations (2-29) for the sinusoidal radome given in Figure 2-18f results
in thc following normalized effective slopcs and effective noisc variance:

-r-T
~.WAX -0s( ) [[sin (y)

- rf- - COS
~.\IAX

where r ~ f . 4= ~2 ~ r , ~ and
/P

-
(J,-
- - sin
2 ~ 4 ~
(Y) sin
ro P
Because it is not significant for long flight times, the bias is neglected. Equations
(2-30b and 2-30c) are plotted in Figure 2-19a for zero phase a. As the target
maneuver and RINs increase. the effective sloves decrease, whereas the effective
noise increases. The effective slopes are much less than the maximum slope, M MAX,
as the gimbal angle increment, r,~, due to target maneuver approaches and exceeds
the radome error period, P. As this occurs, the effective noise approaches 0.7 of the
radome error amplitudes. The greater gimbal angle oscillation, + ' I 2 , due to RIN
accelerates this effect of reduced effective slopes and increased effective noise.

Linear radome miss prediction. Equation (2-31) represents the linear

radome miss-distance prediction, which is the RSS of the components due to system
disturbances and the component due to effective noise
Range-

RMS Miss RMS Miss

RMS Miss
Target Maneuver RMS Miss: fM(r = rT); RIN RMS Miss: fN(r = rf) (2-31)
Effective Noise RMS Miss: fN(r = 0)
 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

SlNUSOlDAL RADOME
DENOTES EFFECTIVE SLOPE V A L U E
GIMBAL ANGLE
STANDARD
I
D E V I A T I O N ldegl

-
EFFECTIVE
SLOPE, rf TRAJECTORY
DYNAMIC
MODEL WITH
2 mrad
RANGE
INDEPENDENT
TARGET MANEUVER NOISE
EFFECTIVE

7.5 deg 1---

.0.06 -0.04 .0.02 0 0.02 0.04
R A D O M E SLOPE
(B)

3 0 d q PERIODSINUSOIDAL R A D W E
0 --180d.p
INDEPENDENT
EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE NOISE
SLOPE. rf

:;;,,
STANDARD
DEVIATION 1rnr.d)
.0.0(5

. o . m h ,

0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
GIMBAL ANGLE GIMBAL ANGLE
STANDARD DEVIATION Id41 STANDARD DEVIATION 1-1
(C)

30dW PERIODSINUSOIDAL RADOME

CONSTANT 2 rnrad RANGE INDEPENDENT NOISE
SLOPE
RAWME 'J 4- rmr
MISS
EFFECTIVE I
SLOPE AND \ 3-

(A)

SlNUSOlDAL
RADDME

1 0
.o.a . 0 . b .o.b2 o 0.b2 0.k o.'a 0.h
MAXIMUM RADOME SLOPE

Figure 2-19 (a) Effective Slopes Decrease and Effective Noise Increases with Target Ma-
neuver and Range Independent Noise (b) Effective Slopes are Reduced with Range Independent
Noise (c) Effective Slope and Noise are Defined by Gimbal Angle Standard Deviation (d)
Effective Slope and Effective Noise Predict Range Independent Noise Induced Miss (e) Target
Maneuver Causes Gimbal Angle Motion (1) Effective Slope Due to Noise Is Reduced with
 Sec. 2.3 NGC System Design and Analyski

3 9 TARGET MANEUVER

SIMULATION SIMULATION

ANALYTICAL

1 1
Y

%
-40
TARGETMANEUVERAT
5wTOW 1 TARGET MANEUVER AT
3ucTOGO

0 5
TIME TO GO lul O TIME TOGO (ucl
(E)

30 deg PFRIOD SlNUSOlDAL RADOME 30 deg PERIOD SlNUSOlDAL RADOME

DENOTES EFFECTIVE SLOPE VALUE
3 9 TARGET MANEUVER
. 2 mrad RANGE INDEPENDENT NOISE
GIMBAL ANGLE STANDARD I
DEVIATION (deg) -CONSTANT SLOPE
1 RADOME

SlNUSOlDAL
TRAJECTORY RADOME

INDEPENDENT

SLOPE
A N 0 NOISE
RADOME
I I I I I I 1
- 0 . E -0.@4 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
rf = .0.004 RAOOME SLOPE MAXIMUM RADOME SLOPE
(H)
30 dog PERIOD SlNUSOlDAL RADOME
30 deg PERIODSlNUSOlDAL RADOME 4 (0.045( MAXIMUM SLOPE

2 mrad RANGE INDEPENDENT NOISE

EFFECTIVE TARGET EFFECTIVE NOISE
MANEUVER SLOPE. '.I- STANDARD 3
DEVIATION (mradl SlNUSOlDAL
RANGE INDEPENUtN'l RADOME
0.038 MISS

0.014
EFFECTIVE SLOPE
AN0 NOISE
6 0 3 6 RADOME

TARGET MANEUVER TARGET MANEUVER 0 1 2 3 4 5

(91 191
TARGET MANEUVER ( g )
(G)
(1)

Target Maneuver and Range Independent Noise (g) Effective Slope Due to Target Maneuver
Is Reduced and Effective Noise Increased with Target Maneuver and Range Independent Noise
(h) Effective Slopes and Effective Noise Predict Miss (i) Effective Slopes and Effective Noise
Predict Target Maneuver Miss (From [Murray, 19841 with permissionfrom AACC)
60 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

Range-independent npise (RIN) miss. The result of RIN is gimbal

angle motion, and the oscillation amplitude is greater for a negative radome slope.
here fore, in addition to the miss distance being greater with negative slope ( ~ i ~ i r e
2-18b), the gimbal angle standard deviation is larger as well. The result is a lower
effective slope and thus a reduction in miss with a periodic radome from that with
a constant slope radome as demonstrated later. Figure 2-19b shows the gimbal angle
standard deviation. The figure also shows the effective radome slope versus gimbal
angle standard deviation for a 1-0.045 1 maximum slope radome. These effective
slopes for periods of 7.5, 30, and 120 deg are obtained from Figure 2-19a. The value
of the effective slope due to RIN is given by the intersection of these two sets of
curves. For @ = 180 deg, corresponding to a -0.045 maximum slope (Figure
2-18f), the effective slope, rf, is -0.028 for a 30-deg period sinusoidal radome as
shown in Figure 2-19c. The resultant effective noise standard deviation is 1.0 mrad.
The RIN induced miss with a sinusoidal radome is predicted by the effective slope
and effective noise, as shown in Figure 2-19d. When Equation (2-31) and the ef-
fective slope and effective noise are used to compute miss, this correlates with the
miss for the sinusoidal radome. The reason for which the miss computed this way
agrees so much better than the unrealistically large miss with a constant slope radome
is not difficult to understand. In addition to increasing RIN miss, negative radome
slope also increases the gimbal angle standard deviation. The result of this is to lower
the magnitude of the effective negative slope, which in turn reduces the miss. Con-
sider a linear radome miss vrediction model for RIN-induced miss as follows: a 30-
deg period sinusoidal radome, a -0.045 maximum slope at 0-deg gimbal angle,
and a 2-mrad RIN. Based on this model, the RMS RIN-induced miss is 1.5, while
the RMS miss component due to effective noise is 0.3. The RSS for this model is
therefore 1.5. This can be compared to a value of 1.2 for the RSS of the sinusoidal
radome error model. In this examvle the RIN comvonent for a -0.028 effective
slope is dominant. The effective noise component is relatively small.

Noise and target maneuver miss. Gimbal angle motion is induced as

a result of target maneuver as shown in Figure 2-19e. Here, both simulation and
analytical results are displayed for target maneuvers initiated at 3 and 5 sec to go.
The gimbal angle increment, a,,, due to target maneuver can be expressed analyt-
icall y as

An arialytical expression for a missile acceleration, A,,, due to target maneuver.

AT,, for a zero time lag missile system can be found in Fossier and Hall [I9671 and
Jerger [1960]. Equation (2-32) is obtained for computing 8, given A,,,, and assumirlg
perfect seeker stabilization and therefore that q, = 8. This equation is not highly
Sec. 2.3 NGC System Design and Analysls 61

sensitive to radome slope, r. There is a variation of 12 deg, from 22 deg to 34 deg,

in u , ~for
, r varying from -0.045 to +0.045 with a value of 27 deg for r equal to
0.0. The results that follow therefore neglect r in Equation (2-32). That is, A, =
A. As can be seen in Figure 2-19f, the effective slope due to RIN is dramatically
reduced with target maneuver and RIN. This reduction is primarily a consequence
of the 3-g target maneuver, which results in a 27-deg gimbal angle increment,
u,~,. This caused the effective slope, r,, to decrease from -0.028 (no maneuver) to
-0.004 for the 30-deg period sinusoidal radome. As shown in Figure 2-19g. there
is also a big falloff in the effective slope due to target maneuver as target maneuver
is increased. Thc 27-deg gimbal angle increment, q,,, owing to a 3-g target ma-
neuver causes the effective slope, r ~ . to, fall off from a value of 0.038 to 0.014 for
the 30-dcg period sinusoidal radome. The effective slopes and effective noise predict
the miss with a sinusoidal radome as shown in Figure 2-19h. Using Equation
(2-31) together with the effective slopes and effective noise to compute miss gives
values that correlate well with the miss with the sinusoidal radome. These miss
distances are the RMS of four sets of 25 flights each, with the sets having the initial
gimbal anglc at the radome phase angle, 0,of 6.0, 13.5, 21.0, and 28.5 deg. Thus,
these miss distances are the RMS over RIN, uniformly distributed target maneuver,
and gimbal angle. Consider a linear radome miss-distance prediction model as fol-
lows: a 30-deg period sinusoidal radome; a 1 0.043 / maximum slope; a 3-g target
maneuver; a 2-mrad RIN; and an RMS miss of four radome phases. Using this
linear radome miss-distance prediction model, the RMS miss-distance component
due to target maneuver is 0.8, while that due to RIN is 0.8 and that due to effective
noise is 0.8. With these values, the RSS is 1.4, which can be compared with a value
of 1.5 for the sinusoidal radome. In this example, the effective noise component is
equal to the target maneuver and RIN components. The effective slopes and effective
noise predict the miss with increasing target maneuver as shown in Figure 2-19i.

Empirical radome slope calculation. It is not difficult to find in the

literature empirical relationships for radome slope [Donatelli and Fleeman, 1982;
Giragosian, 1979; Travers, 1982; Youngren, 19611. That found in Travers [I9821 is
examined here as an example to illustrate certain key points.

where p is the radome fineness ratio (radome length divided by radome diameter),
E is the dielectric constant, f~ is the deviation from design frequency, A is the signal
wavelength, K , is the performance measure, and Dd is the dish diameter. The
dielectric constant is a function of both temperature and radome material. Walton
[I9701 gives the dielectric constant for different radome materials at various tem-
peratures. Generally, radome slope error decreases with increasing seeker dish di-
ameter, with decreasing fineness ratio, and with decreasing signal wavelength. The
thickness of the radome is usually constructed to be one half of the wavelength to
avoid multiple reflections. The performance measure k, reflects how sophisticated
the manufacturing process is, higher numbers indicating an advanced radome grind-
62 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

ing process. While a hemisphere ( p = 0.5) possesses ideal electromagnetic prop-

erties, it is possible to achieve lower drag with shapes having a higher fineness ratio.
Therefore, a compromise must be struck between these opposing factors. Radome
slope is related to the total radome swing by r = + r ~ / 2which is treated as a
maximum expected value for 90 percent of the slopes for a given radome [Nesline
and Zarchan, 1984(b)].

Higher-order system analysis. In Figure 2-15a(iii), Nesline and Zar-

chan [1984(b)] consider

The guidance system transfer functions are

The effective guidance time constant, T;, can be approximated as the coefficient of
the s term in the denominator of ~ ~ u a t i o(2-35)
n anh is the same as that in Equation
(2-28). Here, as in the case of the first-order system, the effective navigation ratio,
A', is modified by radome slope according to Equation (2-28). It is easily seen that
rand T, have an effect on the guidance time constant and effective navigation ratio
the same as occurs in the first-order system of this example. It is possible to achieve
larger stability regions if one can keep small any or all of the following: the navigation
ratio, the ratio of the turning rate to guidance time constant, the ratio of closing to
missile velocity, and the radome slope [Nesline and Zarchan, 1984(b); Peterson,
19611.
Because for a given radome, increasing A acts to destabilize the system, the
designer must strike a balance between having A to be sufficiently small so as to
satisfy stability requirements and at the same time sufficiently large so as to ensure
effective homing. For a given higher Ta, radome effects were responsible for sta-
bility problems as well as an increase in miss distance. Higher T, is found at higher
altitude and lower missile velocity. While T, is usually increased at higher altitudes
to improve stability, this brings about a corresponding increase in miss distance.
Consequently, the designer is faced with attempting to make 7 ,as small as possible
to reduce the miss distancc without sacrificing too much stability. O f course thosc
components of miss distancc caused by saturation and radomc/parasitic effects will
not be affected by lowering 7,. The minimum achievable guidance time constant,
(~~),i,,,given T, and the expected r, can be determined on the basis of a useful
stability criterion originally developed by Nesline and Zarchan [1984(b)] as - 0.79
< r h,(VJ V,,,)(Ta/rg) < 2.07. The left-hand side of the preceding inequality gives
the lower limit of the allowable negative radome slope, while the right-hand side
establishes the positive upper limit of radome slope. If the guidance time constant
is increased, there is a slight degradation in miss accompanied by a decrease in the
system scnsitivity to radome swing. If the guidance time constant is decreased below
Sec. 2.3 NGC System Design and Analysis 63

the minimum predicted by the stability analysis, it becomcs impossible to attain

satisfactory performancc over the expected radomc swing range. When thc resultant
performance estimatc is not compatible with the allowable warhcad size, eithcr r or
T, must be reduccd. Reducing thc former may involvc blunting the nose, using
compensation, or somc other techniquc, while reducing the latter can be done by
increasing the lifting surface area, reducing the maximum operational altitudc, in-
creasing missile velocity, reducing missilc weight, and so on [Ncslinc and Zarchan,
1984(b); l'etcrson. 19611.

Example 2-4: Homing missile guidance and control analysis.

Trimming thc missile at high altitudc may require that the fin be deflected through
large angles. If the fin angle is limitcd, the missile's acceleration capability will also
be limited. Determining the fin dcflection required for deterministic inputs can be
aided through the use o f zero-lag guidance system results. Neglecting guidance
dynamics in Equation (4) o f Table 2-2, fin angle can be expressed according to
Nesline and Zarchan [1984(a)] as

Achieving in a rapid fashion the large control fin angles necessary to trim the missile
at high altitudc requires that the control fin move at high rates. The result of an
inability on the part of the control fin actuator to attain these rates can be instability.
Combining Equation (2-35) and Equation (4) of Table 2-2, the fin rate response
due to LOS rate for the fifth-order binominal guidance system becomes

As was true in the case of fin angle, zero-lag guidance system results are very useful
for determining fin rate response due to deterministic inputs. When guidance system
dynamics are neglected, Equation (2-37) becomes [Nesline and Zarchan, 1984(a)]

Following Examples 2-2 and 2-3, if the structural filter, actuator, accelerometer,
and gyro dynamics are relatively fast, the FCS can be represented by the ideal third-
order transfer function described by

where T, 5, and o are the FCS desired time constant, desired damping, and desired
natural frequency, respectively. The values for the zeros are determined by the
aerodynamic configuration (the way in which these values are determined i~ pre-
 64 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

sented in Book 1 of the series). The FCS gain is represented by K.This third-order
model of the autopilot dynamics is useful in generating a nominal system design.
The model supposes only two homing loop disturbances with white glint noise
with PSD +, in addition to a uniformly distributed sinusoidal target maneuver
shown later in Figure 2-21d. These are two important factors that contribute to
high miss distance in a radar-guided PNG system. An adjoint model similar to that
to be presented in Chapter 3 for Example 2-2 is constructed based on the homing
loop shown in Figures 2-15a(iii) and 2-ljb, which follows the adjoint rules pre-
sented in Chapter 3. From such an adjoint model, an adjoint simulation is created
using representative values for error sources and system parameters, the results of
which are shown in Figure 2-20. Neglecting parasitic effects, the guidance system
transfer function is given by

TOTAL rmr

TARGET
MANEUVER
CONTRIBUTION
NOISE
CONTRIBUTION

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM T l M E CONSTANT k c )
(B)

o 2 i 6
E F F E C T I V E NAVIGATION RATIO, A
(A)

NORMALIZED RADOME SLOPE- NORMALIZED RADOME SLOPE

(D)
Figure 2-20 (a) Effective Navigation Ratio Influences System Performance (b) Flight Control
System Time Constant Influences System Performance (c) Decreasing Flight Control System
Time Constant Makes System Performance More Sensitive to Radome Slope (d) Decreasing
Flight Control System Damping Makes System Performance More Sensitive to Radomc Slope
(From /Neslines, 1984(a)] and /Nesline G Zarchan, 19821 utith permissions from AACC and
ACARD)
Sec. 2.3 NaC System Design and Analysls 65

-
where A,, = KA is the desiredlactual effective navigation ratio. Since the gain K is
varied around unity, the actual and the desired navigation ratios are almost identical.
140, which varies due to changes in the flight condition, is one major determinant
of homing system performance. Typical performance results displayed in Figure 2-
20a show that if A,, is too high, miss distance increases due to noise and, if it is too
low, miss distance increases due to target maneuver. Therefore, A. has an optimal
value based on the error sources and system parameters, and in no case should exceed
certain bounds. This imposes limitations on the allowable variation in K,as a varia-
tion in gain is equivalently a variation in A,]. For example, a variation in from
unity along with the corresponding variation in A,, makes it impossible to attain
optimal homing performance. Neglecting parasitic effects, T , ~can be approximated
as the coefficient of the first-order term in the denominator of Equation (2-40a) as

Therefore, increasing the FCS time constant T increases T,,, while decreasing T de-
creases T , [Nesline
~ and Zarchan, 19821. The system performance is also substantially
affected by T.

Autopilot response characteristics necessary to achieve homing.

The speed of response of an FCS can be measured to first-order accuracy by 7. The
maximum system time constant permissible to achieve successful homing depends
primarily on the maneuverability of the targets the missile is expected to engage
and the reauired miss distance necessarv to intercept these targets.
" Seven-tenths of
a second would be an acceptable maximum for a moderately difficult homing en-
gagement. Figure 2-20b shows the effect of T on miss distance [Neslines, 1984(a)].
As shown in this figure, in which it is assumed that the time constants T,, T,, and
2510 are all known, if 7 is decreased, the miss due to target maneuver will also
decrease, but that due to noise will increase. Increasing 7 produces the opposite
result. For the set of inputs considered it appears from Figure 2-20b that T can be
made arbitrarily small to optimize the miss distance, but this cannot be done because
of radome refraction effects. When the parasitic radome loop is considered, the
guidance transfer function becomes
-
A*,, KAV,(l + +
Ails AI2s2)s
+ ?,$)(I + T , s ) ( ~ + +
-ir

cr (1 rs)(l 2[s/w + s2/w2) + (i7i\vCr/v,,,)(l + T,s)

where 7; and A' are the same as those in Equation (2-28) except that T, is given by
Equation (2-40b). The effect of radome slope error on system stability is itself
strongly dependent on T,. At high altitudes, where T, is large, the guidance transfer
function can become unstable due to either excessively positive or negative radome
slopes. Thus, small T yields a large guidance system sensitivity to radome slopes as
shown in Figure 2-20c [Nesline and Zarchan, 19821. Therefore, the optimal value
66 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

of 7 is bounded from above by target maneuver (especially at low altitude) consid-

erations, and from below by radome refraction effects (especially at high altitude).
The minimum amount of damping required in order to maintain performance, given
a reasonable radome. should be determined usingu a detailed complete missile model:
however, a damping ratio of 0.3 is a reasonable estimate of the minimum value that
a radar-guided missile could tolerate. Figure 2-20d shows the effect of reduced
damping and radome slope on miss distance [Neslines, 1984(a)]. The figure also
shows typical high-altitude performance for a FCS with high and low damping. As
shown in this figure, the FCS damping becomes more crucial when radome effects
are considered. A system with low damping is far more sensitive to radome effects
than one with higher damping. This means that if the unaugmented airframe is to
be used in a radar homing application, a FCS must improve the low damping.

Example 2-5: Radome error compensation. Following Example

2-4 and Figures 2-15a(iv) and 2-15b, assuming 7, = Ilk = 0 sec infinity bandwidth,
and assuming

7y - effective FCS time constant ;--- 27A

Combining the guidance equation (2-16) and autopilot Equation (2-42a) then gives
(2-42a)

A,, -
- A V<u;
1 + h A s + 275s2 + 7is3

Substituting for 6 yields the guidance system transfer function

where 7; and A' are the same as those in Equation (2-28) except that 7, = 2 7 + ~
7,. With AV,/V,,, = 6, r = 5.02, and T , = 10, A V,rT,I V,,, can be & 1.2 sec and
hence the guidance system becomes unstable (that is, 7,;<0 ). The radome crror
slope can be the dominant factor in the guidance response time [Hiroshige, 19861.
A guidance and control system is designed to compensate for the stability problcm
caused by the radome error. To alleviate the severe radome stability problem for a
high-altitude engagement scenario, one of the commonly used engineering "fixes"
is to introduce pitch rate compensation G,0 with gain G , feedback to either before
or after the guidance filtering network as shown in Figure 2-2. It can somewhat
symmetrize the positive and negative slope stability region at the cost of slowing
down the autopilot response [Yueh and Lin, 1984, 1985(a)]. Adding the pitch ratc
compensation and the guidance filtering (1/(1 +
7.5)) to the guidance cquatiorl
Sec. 2.3 NOC System Design and Analysis 67

(2-42c). The guidance system transfer function bccomcs

--
-A,,,, (I + r)AV<s
urn,<. s(l + T ~ ~ ) [ ~ / G , ,+( SG,AV,(I
) + Tas)lV,,,llGs(s) + r A V 4 + ?,s)/Vm

The transfcr function for thc FCS, G.d(s) can be modeled as a third-order transfcr
function as described in Equation (2-3'9) or (3-42a). If thc nonlinear elcmcnts are
not included in the analysis, Equation (2-43a) based on the linear FCS model is
easily solved. Howevcr, if it bccomcs necessary to employ the nonlinear FCS model,
it is difficult to obtain an analytical solution using the classical frequency-response
approach. Assuming the input to the saturated nonlinear elements is a sinusoid, then
the nonlinearity can be represented by a variable gain N obtained from the describing
function of the nonlinear element to be presented in Chap. 3. The transfer function
for the FCS would then be given by G . 4 ( ~ = ) N(ao + als + azr2)l(bo + bls + bzs2
+ b3s3) where the parameters are specified according to a particular condition. If
+
G,(s) = G , = constant, C s ( s ) = 1/(1 7,s) have been assumed, then from Equa-
tion (2-43a).

T,;
(1 + G,A V,i C',,,)(T, + T,) + 7, + (G, + r) T,A V,I V,,
(2-43b)
1 + (G, + r)AV,/V,,,
'=

A' = (I + r)Al[l + (G, + r)AVclV,,,] (2-43c)

where the effective autopilot time constant 7, -- ~ T Athe, guidance filter constant
T,, and the radome compensation gain G , can be selected to compensate for the
stability problem caused by the radome error. In comparing Equations (2-28) and
(2-43), one can see that the radome compensation G,0 has reduced A' and increased
7;, both of which tend to stabilize the system of a given radome but at the expense
of decreasing the guidance response time. The root-locus technique is applicable
only to a linear, time-invariant system. The root locus for a linear, time-varying
system of Equation (2-43a) can be obtained with the roots at different t,. The
evaluation can be performed on the transfer function given in Equation (2-43a) for
T,, T,, and G,, which vary with respect to t,.

Example 2-6: Gyro sensitivity gain design. In this section, a method

of approximating aeroelastic effects on the dynamic behavior of a rate gyro is de-
veloped. More detailed derivations of a flexible body transfer function from control
surface deflections to body rotation rates have been presented in Book 1 of the series.
A gyro sensitivity gain expression of body-mounted rate gyro coming from body
acceleration due to the aeroelastic vibration is considered here. The following as-
sumptions are made in this derivation: (1) the first mode of vibration considered
here is excited by body accelerations, (2) only longitudinal and lateral vibrations are
considered, and (3) superposition of the aeroelastic angular rate at any given point
 68 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

on the rigid-body angular rates is valid. The transfer function from the generalized
acceleration f to the normalized body-bending curve can be written as

where 5 1 is a structural damping rate, w l is the natural frequency, and Z is the

reference displacement to which the mode shape 1 shown in Table 2-3 is normalized.
The location of the body-mounted rate gyro on the normalized body bending mode
shape 1 shown in Table 2-3 is arbitrary, and it is desired to derive an expression
for the aeroelastic body angular rate at this station. T o this end, the slope of thc
normalized bending curve at the rate gyro station is determined first. Then, the
time rate of change of this slope, due to acceleration, is approximately equal to the
aeroelastic body angular rate at the rate gyro station. The product of the normalized
displacement Z N and the reference displacement Z located at the rate gyro body
station give the instantaneous reflection Z D at this station. That is, Z D = ZAjZ.
The slope of the normalized bending curve h at the rate gyro station is h =
ZN/XD and the actual slope at the same station is K = Z D / X D= hZ. The rate of
change of the actual instantaneous slope is K = h i . For small-amplitude oscillations.
the slope of the tangent to the curve at the gyro station can be approximated by the
angle between this tangent and the reference x-axis. In this case, the aeroelastic
angular body rates 8 , at the rate gyro station is
8, = K = / z ~ (2-43)
Thus, the transfer function from the generalized accelerations f to the aeroelastic
angular body ratcs a t the gyro station is found by substituting Equation (2-45) into
Equation (2-44) giving
8,/f = s / ~ / ( +s ~251wls +~ f ) (2-46)
Because the first-ordcr bending frcqucncy is typically very Iargc, thc gyro sensitivity
gain to the step accelcration can be expressed to an approximation as
K, = hlw: (2-47)
For missile applications, the gyro sensitivity gain is a very .small value since the
normalized slope h is a small value and the bending frequency w l is a large value
of first bcnding modc.

2.4 TARGET TRACKING STATE MODELING

2.4.1 Target N o i s e and Target Maneuver Modeling

Targct noise has been presented in Section 2.3. I , and is applied hcrc to gencratc the
target mancuver signal-to-noise ratio. Figure 2-21 shows thc cquivalcnt signal noisc
diagram, where the signal, representing a target maneuver, is in turn represcntcd
by a shaping filter. As was done in Section 2.3.1, it is possiblc to convert thc total
Sec. 2.4 Target Tracklng State Modeling

Target
. Position Noise
~ ~n ~ ,
-
Target Maneuver Model T ~position
Spectral Density 7 Signal yT
Target Position
Measurement z
Shaping Filter H(s)

a) De~ermineManeuver: b(l)

b) Brownian Target Position: u,@

--L
+
J

C) Zero-Mean White Gaussian Targel Acceleration: ,,

d) Uniformly Distributed Targel Maneuver: us

e) Poisson Jinking Maneuver: u,

St),,.

Note: u, = white noisc with PSD 9,

Figure 2-21 Target Maneuver Model

seeker angular noise to a positlon noise by multiplying the angle noise by the range
to go. In general, it is possible to generate a number of random processes by passing
a white noise w through a suitable filter. If it is assumed that the target noise n in
Figures 2-1% and 2-21 is a first-order Gauss-Markov process with correlation time
constant T,, and white noise input w , then the corresponding equivalent white noise
PSD of the position noise is

where r , and 4, are given by Equation (2-25). Figure 2-21a shows a deterministic
model, which is the simplest case. In most applications, target position or velocity
or acceleration is assumed to be filtered white noise (see Figures 2-21b through
2-21d).
Uniformly distributed target maneuver. For a target acceleration of
step form with r a g o m starting time varying uniformly over the flight time, the
autocorrelation function of this model is identical to that of the integrated white
noise (see Figure 2-21d). The uncertainty in target position y + is described by a
third-order integrator with a constant PSD 4, white-noise input us as:

where n T is the magnitude of the step maneuver, and tr is the flight time over which
the maneuver is uniformly distributed. Two integrators are used in tandem in order
to convert the acceleration to the target position y T , as shown in Figure 2-21d.
70 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

With regard to the uniformly distributed target maneuver, it can be seen by ex-
amining Figure 2-21d that the noise spectral density level is constant, but the signal
spectral density passes through three integrators. As a consequence, the target signal
is frequency dependent while the target noise is not at a particular range to go.
Moose et al. [I9791 give a short exposition on the evolution of the relationship of
target acceleration modeling to stochastic processes. This evolutionary development
is graphically depicted in Figur62-22 [Cloutier et al., 19881. Initially, as shown in
Figures 2-22a and 2-21c, target acceleration was simply accounted for with white
noise (depicted by a correlated process whose spectrum is flat over the system band-
width). Consequently, tracking could be maintained only for those maneuvers re-
maining within the envelope of the white noise, and even then performance suffered
due to the incorrect assumption of uncorrelated acceleration.

Correlated acceleration process. A correlated acceleration process,

Figure 2-22b, can be achieved using Gauss-Markov models [Fitts, 1974; Pearson

Figure 2-22 Historical Development

of Maneuvering Target Acceleration
Models (a) Zero-Mean White Gaussian
Process (b) Zero-Mean Correlated
Gaussian Process (c) White Gaussian
Process with llandomly Switching Mean
(d) Correlated Gaussian Process with
Randomly Switching Mean (Frotn
/Clourirr et a!., 19881 with prmisrion porn
(D) AACC)
Sec. 2.4 Target 'Itacking State Modeling 71

and Stcar, 1974; Singer, 1970; Vcrgez and Liefer. 19841. The well-known Singer
model [Singcr, 1970) has been used with various Kalman-type filters to achieve
excellent tracking characteristics over a broad class of large scale maneuvers. Its
primary drawbacks arc the need to specify apriori both the acceleration time constant
and power of the driving noise and the inability of the model-based filter to track
target motion resulting from abrupt changes (jumps) in the acceleration process.
The velocity a t which the target is moving is constant, but thc target's lateral ac-
celeration is described as a Poisson jinking maneuver. Such a maneuver, which is
one whosc magnitude B (RMS target acceleration) is constant but whosc sign is
randomly switching, can be modeled as white noise through a single-polc filter.
This is because the acceleration autocorrelation function (RA.,.)I(7) = ~ ~ e - ~ .' f' ' =
average frequency) corresponding to this maneuver process is identical to the Poisson
process. Thus, the target maneuver models are as shown in Figure 2-21e
AT, = -2fAr, + 2B d? w , = -A,AT, + h,u, (2-50)
where u, is a zero-mean Gaussian noise, that is,
-
~v, with PSD = - (2-51)

w , is a white noise with unit PSL), and A, = 2f = the target maneuver bandwidth.
Gholson and Moose [I9771 modeled rapid, major changes in target motion by a
semi-Markov process. The mean of their process, Figure 2-22c, randomly switched
to a finite number of states according to a Markov transition probability matrix,
with the time duration in each state itself being a random variable. Successf~~ltrack-
ing with this method necessitates a large number of preselected states, and the er-
roneous assumption of uncorrelated acceleration is still retained. Moose et al. [I9791
extended this work by employing the Singer model to represent correlated accel-
eration within each of the states, Figure 2-22d. Larimore and Lebow [I9871 de-
veloped a similar model based on a parameterized Gauss-Markov process with the
parameters changing according to a point process [Cloutier et al., 19881. Lin and
haf froth [1983(a)] concluded that oneof the most versatile representations of target
acceleration is that of the sum of a continuous-time Gaussian process and a finite
basisljump process. The continuous-time process can be obtained by means of a
classical shaping filter, while the jump process which is characterized by its basis,
jump size distribution, and interjump time distribution, can be obtained by driving
a shaping filter with a white sequence.

Other target acceleration modeling. As stated in Cloutier et al. [1988,

19891, another aspect of target acceleration modeling is a consideration of the aero-
dynamic characteristics of the target. A winged aircraft accelerates mostly ortho-
gonal to its velocity vector, in particular, orthogonal to the plane of its wings. The
magnitude of the acceleration also has asymmetric bounds (positive or negative g)
which are set by pilot and/or aircraft limitations. Modeling based solely on target
point-mass motion fails to take many of these characteristics into account. Kendrick
72 MDASE of NGC Processing Chap. 2

et al. [I9811 modeled normal load acceleration with a random variable whose prob-
ability density function (PDF) was asymmetrically distributed between small neg-
ative g and large positive g. Nonnormal accelerations were modeled as first-order
Gauss-Markov. It was assumed that the orientation of the three-dimensional target
could be obtained by means of an EO seeker in conjunction with pattern recognition.
Bullock and Sangsuk-Iam [I9841 developed a nonlinear Cartesian model of target
dynamics by using polar coordinates to model planar, circular turns under the as-
sumption of constant velocity magnitude. Similarly, Hull et al. [I9831 used polar
coordinates to model both acceleration magnitude and angle as random processes.
This led to a Cartesian model characterized by state-dependent noise. Finally, the
parameterized Gauss-Markov model developed by Larimore and Lebow [I9871 took
into account aerodynamic parameters such as bank angle, lift force, and thrust minus
drag. A particular maneuver has a given set of parameters, while any abrupt change
in the parameters corresponds to the initiation of a new maneuver. Merging a point
process, or jump process, with a continuous-time Gaussian process, either addi-
tively, as recommended in Lin and Shafroth [1983(a)], or through parametric embed-
ding as performed in Larimore and Lebow [1987], is an excellent way to model the
acceleration of a highly maneuverable target. However, of the models of this type
developed to date, only one [Larimore and Lebow, 19871 has given any consideration
to the aerodynamic characteristics of the target. The natural next step in this tech-
nology area is to merge the concepts of those models based on aircraft flying char-
acteristics with those symbolized by Figure 2-22d.

2.4.2 Two-Dimensional Target Tracking State

Modeling

Consider the two-dimensional target tracking problem illustrated in Figure 2-10.

For simplicity, let velocity VT be in the x-direction while V,, = 0 and y = 0 for
a fixed tracking station. From Equations (2-2),
R = v7-cos u, 6 = - (VTIR) sin a (2-52)
Differentiating these equations yields the nonlinear state equations
R = VT cos u - l,/6 sin g ,ii = - [ ( v ~ R- v ~ R ) / R sin
~ ] u - (VT/R)6 cos cr
(2-53)
Following the treatment of Lewis [1986], assume that the target is not accelerating,
that is, VT = 0. Then, assuming also very small changes in R and u during each
1 to 10-scc radar scan, one has that R ;= 0 and & = 0. Hencc, random disturbances
are introduced to account for the small changes in R and b during
O R ( [ ) and ow(()
the scan time T, giving
Sec. 2.4 Target nacklng State Modellng 73

The processes w R ( t )and w,(t) are known as maneuver noise. Because the Kalman
filter is robust in the presence of process noise, R and & can be tracked. The addition
of process noise is done to offset unmodeled dynamics introduced as a result of
excluding nonlinear terms. The state equations then become linear as

The measurement model, given that the radar measures range R and azimuth a is
defined in Equation (2-3) and is given by

Suppose independent disturbance accelerations are uniformly distributed between

t n T,then w R ( t )is a radial acceleration with variance n$/3. Since w,(t) is an angular
acceleration, w,(t)R is distributed according to the maneuver noise PDF and w,(t)
has variance n$/(3R2). The covariances of process noise w ( t ) and the measurement
noise v ( t ) are given respectively by

where :u and a : denore the variances of the range and azimuth measurements, and
: <a
a : is assumed. For each scan, the scan time for which is denoted by T, the
measurements z ( t ) are available. Given that the square of the system matrix A is
zero, the series representations for the sampled matrices are easily used, giving

where
74 MDASE of ROC Processing Chap. 2

2.4.3 Three-Dimensional Intercept State Modeling

Twelve-state guidance law design modeling equation. The linear

state model, consisting of relative position, relative velocity, target acceleration, and
the FCS and the airframe and propulsion dynamics, is given by Equation (3) of
Table 2-1 with N = I and x, A, B, u, w defined as follows:
x = [x,, y,, z,, xr, jl?, i,,AT,, AT^, A T = ,Am,, A m , , ,Am,I T

where subscripts T and m denote target and pursuer, respectively; x,, y,, and z ,
are, respectively, the x , y, and z components of the relative position in inertial axes;
ir,jl,, and 2 , are, respectively, the x, y, and z components of the relative velocity
in inertial axes; and AT,, ATl, AT, are target accelerations which are modeled as
a Poisson jinking maneuver shown in Figure 2-21d with target maneuver bandwidth
A and with w T as the white process noise with covariance matrix Q. Definitions of
A and Q are as follows:

where A , and 4, are the same parameters as those in the horizontal plane case defined
in Equation (2-51). The states A,,, A,,, A,,, represent the pursuer accelerations,
and the first-order model defined in Example 2-2 is assumed here with its bandwidth
o defined as

o = (2-62)
0 0 0,

The nonlinear measurement equations for a sensor measuring range, range rate, and
two LOS angles can be represented as the true values corrupted by additive noise
as

when /I is a nonlinear function of the states and v is a white measurement noise with
covariance r. The target tracking sensor is assumed to provide measurements of
LOS angles u,,and a, slant range R, and range rate R (see Figure 2-9). Thus, the
z vector is given by

[;][ =
R,,,,. = /I,
R,,,, = 11, = (xf + yt + z ,2) 112
= (x,i, + y , j , + z,i,)l(x: + y t + xf)'12
u,,,, = h, = tan-'[z,l(x? + y,) ]
urmr= h4 = tan-' (y,lx,)
2 112

I + v (2-63b)
Sec. 2.4 Target nacklng State Madeling 75

where the subscript true denotes the geometric relationship, and the subscript k
denotes time index. The measurement noise v is defined as
R m + Rf + R, + R,r,,,
(2-63~)
ut, + u , + a,, + 0,,,,
urn + Of + u, + ~gl,,,#

where, as in the case of two-dimensional engagement, the subscript rn denotes the

receiver noise, f the fading noise, c the clutter noise, and glint the glint noise. Spe-
cifically, the LOS angle measurement noise v , is the same as that in the horizontal
plane case defined in Equation (2-22).

Nine-state guidance filtering equation. The nine-element state vector

of the linear kinematic target-pursuer engagement model is simplified from the
twelve-state one, and is written as

where the measurement equations are the same as Equations (2-63), and x, u, A.
B, and w are defined as follows:

where the target bandwidth A and the process noise covariance matrix Q are defined
in Equation (2-61). The achieved pursuer acceleration u is assumed to be measured
very accurately by accelerometers so that an estimate of u is not needed. For a sensor
with a constant data rate, that is, sampling state every T sec, the discrete form of
the system equation in Equation (2-64) is
x ( k ) = O ( T ,A)x(k - 1 ) + W u ( k - 1) + w ( k - 1 ) (2-65a)
where the state matrix @ is
D(A, A)
A-'(13 - e K A A )
e -AA I (2-65b)

where D ( s , h ) = ( e - ' h - I + s h ) h K 2 ,the deterministic forcing term. T u ( -~ 1)

depends on pursuer acceleration, which is assumed to be known exactly and is given
by
76 MDASE of NGC frocesslng Chap. 2

If U(T)is assumed to be u(k - 1) between the time intervals (k - 1)T and kT, then
V( k-1 = ( -I ,
T2
-T I 0
T
u(k - 1) (2-65c)

and the discrete form of the process noise w(k - 1) is a white-noise sequence

where
D ( k T - T, A)
- e-(kT-~)A]
-(kT-,)A
(2-65e)
E[w(k - I)] = 0, E[w(k - l)w(k - = a
and the discrete process noise coGariance matrix a is

where, as shown in Singer [1970],

 Modern Multivariable
Control Analysis
Modern multivariable control analysis, which is the second ofthe five primary topics
as shown in Figure 1 of the Preface, is mainly concerned with the analyses of ro-
bustness, performance, dynamics, and stability. This chapter deals specifically with
the first two analyses, while stability and dynamics analysis is covered in Book 1
of the series. Robustness analysis (Sections 3.1 to 3.6) is particularly important for
examining multivariable control systems design. Performance analysis (Sections 3.7
to 3.12) includes the various statistical methods used in the analysis and synthesis
of any modern NGC system. The material of this chapter is based in large part on
AGNC [1986(a), (b)].

Robustness analysis. The background material for this discussion on

robustness analysis, such as the use of matrix theory and the property of singular
value, is presented in Book 1 of the series. Robustness means that the closed-loop
stability and performance are insensitive to uncertainties which include modeling
errors, nonlinearities, unmodeled dynamics, measurement errors, and unknown
external disturbances. The more the system can preserve its performance and sta-
bility under uncertainties, the more robust it is. Robustness analysis is essential since
all models of physical processes are to some extent approximations of the true plant
or state. The existence of uncertainties due to incomplete system knowledge, sim-
 78 Modem MultluarfableControl Analysis Chap. 3

plified assumptions in the model, external disturbances such as air turbulence around
a flight vehicle, or measurement noises are the primary reason for employing feed-
back. Feedback aims to compensate for the uncertainty, thus preserving system
stability and performance. T6 characterize how robust a system is, a reliable and
nonconservative measure of the robustness margin is essential. For a single-input-
single-output (SISO) system, this is generally relegated to the gain and phase mar-
gins. For a multivariable system, the singular value, structured singular value, and
other robustness margins have to be used. All these robustness measures will be
discussed in Sections 3.1 to 3.6.

Performance analysis. The rest ofthis chapter is devoted to a comparison

of various computerized statistical analysis methods employed in the synthesis and
analysis of guidance systems. Through examples, the advantages and computer costs
of each method are examined in detail. The design that emerges in the synthesis of
a guidance system must specify allowable measurement noise, determine subsystem
bandwidths that guarantee adequate stability margins, prevent component satura-
tion, and evaluate total system performance (see Books 1 and 4 of the series and
Yueh and Lin [1985(a) & (b)]). Several statistical analysis techniques can be applied
to both linear and nonlinear noise-driven systems for the purpose of studying systcm
performance. Linear analysis has as exact methods the adjoint technique and co-
variance analysis. Approximate methods that exist for nonlinear analysis includc
Monte Carlo techniques, CADET, and SLAM. These performance analysis rncthods
are all examincd with the help of a unifying example involving missile homing
guidance and digital simulation. The unif>;ing example from inissilc homing guid-
ance prcscntcd in Example 3-2 is uscd to demonstrate thc utility of each of thc
pcrformancc analysis tcchniqucs via digital simulation IZarchan, 1979(a), 19881.
When trcating thc complctc nonlinear dynamics of thc vchiclc's n ~ o t i o n anal-
,
ysis must be pcrformcd on thc systcm of equations govcrning thc complctc N G C
loop. Thc analysis n ~ u s tconsider both detcrininistic inputs such as impulses and
steps, and random or stochastic inputs such as white noise and turbulence. In prin-
ciple, any type of problcm involving N G C systems can be solvcd using the mcthods
of pcrformance analysis. However, theoretical analyses of N G C loops almost always
involve the use of cornputcrs owing to the prcscncc of nonlincar differential cqua-
tions with variablc cocfficicnts, and thc stochastic nature of thc actual N G C pro-
ccsscs. Whilc thc importance of numerical solutions obtaincd from thc application
of computers cannot bc ovcrcn~phasizcd,analytic analyscs of N G C loops arc cqunlly
~ ~ tpurposes of estimating thc gcncral laws governing the N G C proccss.
i ~ n p o r t a for

3.1 SINGULAR VALUE APVU,YSlS

The idca of gain and phase margins has bccn uscd in spccifying and evaluating the
robustness of an SISO systcm. Consider thc fccdback systcln dcpictcd in Fig~lrc
3-1. Thc transfcr function C(s) incorporatcs both opcn-loop plant dynamics and
Sec. 3.1 Singular Value Analysis

??3-+ Figure 3-1 Feedback System

any con~pensationemployed. The Nyquist stability theorem states that the closed-
loop system is stable if and only if the graph of Cfjo), for all o,encircles the point
- 1 + j O as many times counterclockwise as C(s) has right half-plane poles. The gain
and phasc margins are derived by perturbing C by KG and eimC,respectively. More
precisely, the system has a gain margin k,,if PC, for all p < I*(,, satisfies the Nyquist
stability theorem. Likewise, the system has a phasc margin 40 if the perturbation
P'+, for all 4 < 40, does not destabilize the system. This concept of gain and phase
margins has been extended to multivariable systems by Rosenbrock 119741 and
MacFarlane and Postlethwaite [I9741 in which the locus of the determinant of the
return difference matrix, that is det[l +G(s)], is evaluated.
It is, however, not possible to identify the design robustness under plant un-
certainties by examining solely the Nyquist plot of det[l + G(s)]. As demonstrated
in Dovle and Stein 119781, the effects of cross coupling in the internal system model
are not dircctlv rcflcctcd in the stability margins obtained from the polar plots of
det[! + C(s)]. Generally, one finds that multivariable generalization of the Nyquist
stability criterion does not directly relate the conditions of multivariable robustness
to tolerance of open-loop modeling errors except in cases where nominal systems
and perturbations thereof are diagonally dominant. M3thematically, this can be ar-
tributed to the inadequacy of the eigenvalues as indicators of the singularity of the
matrix (there is a pole crossing the jo-axis if I + G ( j w ) is singular). Any measure
of robustness or relative stability should predict how far I + G ( j o ) is from being
singular or what is the magnitude of the perturbation that can be tolerated without
destabilizing the system. This observation leads to the singular value analysis in
feedback system designs.
The singular values of a complex p x m matrix M, denoted by ui(M), are the
nonnegative square roots of the eigenvalues of M*M, that is,
a i ( M ) = ~ A ; ( M * M()i = 1, 2, . . . , k) where k = min ( p , m )
Ordering u i such that u , ( M ) 2 u,(M) 2 a 3 ( M ) 2 .., 2 a k ( M ) ,the maximum and
minimum singular values can be alternatively defined by
-
a ( M ) = U I (M) = max [ 11 MX 112/11 X llr] = II M 112 and
I .Y 11220 (3-1)

In the casep = m and M is nonsingular, the smallest singular value can be computed
by g(M) = uk(M) = \\ ML1\\ZJ-' which measures how near the matrix M is t o
being singular or rank deficient. As is well known, the matrix M + E is singular
if there exists a nonzero vector .Y sach that ( M + E ) x = 0. In robustness analysis,
80 Modem Multiuariable Control Analysis Chap. 3

at each frequency w, E represents a certain stable perturbation while M stands for

some nominal closed-loop transfer matrix. If the minimum singular value of M is
greater than the maximum singular value of E for all frequencies, then M +
E is
nonsingular, which implies that the system remains stable if it is nominally stable.
In fact, the singular value is the exact measure of robustness if E is unstructured
(norm-bounded only). In the case that E is structured (subject to certain constraints),
a singular value may be conservative.
Consider the following two possible representations of uncertainties.

1. Additive. The plant is perturbed as G + E for some stable E. The return

difference matrix becomes (I + G + E)-I. If the system is nominally stable,
(I + G ) is nonsingular for all frequencies, then it remains stable as long as I
+ G + E is nonsingular. A sufficient condition for this to be true is z ( I +
C) > II E 112.
2. Multiplicative. The plant is perturbed as C(I + E) for some stable E. The
system is stable if [ I + C(I + E)] or [ I + C + GE] is nonsingular or if [I
-'
+ G + E ] is nonsingular or IT(I+ G -') > (1 E ((7.

Singular value analysis is a powerful tool for checking whether the system is robustly
stable. This notion leads directly to the generalization of gain and phase margins
for multiloop systems. The multiloop gain margin is the pair of real numbers c1
and c2 defining the largest interval ( c l , c2) such that for all Ci(s) = C i E R in Figure
3-2 satisfying the inequalities, ci < C , < c 2 (i= 1, 2, . . . , m), the closed-loop
system remains stable. On the other hand, the multiloop phase margin is the number
c defining the largest interval (-c, c) such that for all C,(s) = e-'"('") in Figure 3-2
satisfying the inequalities - c < &(o)< c ( i = 1 , . . . , I N ) , the closed-loop systcm
remains stable.
The following arc obtained using the preceding definitions and the concept of
singular values: (1) If the original system is stable and ~ ( +l C) > a , then c l 5 111
+
(1 - a)], c2 2 [1/(1 a)], and c r 2 sin-'[a/2]; and (2) If the nominal system is
stable and ~ ( +1 G - ' ) > a , then 5 1 - a , ( 2 2 1 + a, and c 2 2 sin-'[a/2].
Clearly, the singular value plays a crucial role in determining the robustness of the
system. Depending on thc typcs and characteristics of the uncertainty, therc are
diffcrcnt robustness mcasures for diffcrcnt sources of unccrtaintics such as plant
uncertainty or cxternal disturbanccs that have to bc considcrcd. In the next scctiotl,

Figure 3-2 Configuration for

Multiloop C;aiti/Phasc Margin l)cfi~iiti~)~l
Sec. 3.1 Slngular Value Analysb 81

suitable robustness measures are identified and more general robustness analyses are
discussed.
T o show the necessity of using singular values instead of eigenvalucs, consider
the following 2 x 2 matrix:

While the determinant of this matrix is always unity for any E, an additive permr-
bation

produces a singular matrix which cannot be predicted by the eigenvalues. The sin-

s-
gular values of M 6 defined by Equation (3-2) are the square roots of the eigenvalues
[(E' + 2) t E c2 + 4112 of the matrix M*(E)M(E).Note that the singular values
depend on E, while the eigenvalues and determinant do not. Note also that

clearly shows that ~ ( M ( E -

),
) 0 as c -t m. A more interesting example is discussed
in Laub [1985]. The Ostrowski matrix is an n x n matrix whose upper triangle
elements are all + 1, whose diagonal elements are all - I , and whose lower triangle
elements are all zero. That is,

This matrix is nonsingular and its eigenvalues are all equal to - 1. Its determinant
is ( - 1)" for any n. However, the Ostrowski matrix becomes increasingly nearer to
a singular matrix as the dimension n gets larger [Laub, 19833.

In fact, the smallest singular value of the matrix P is 2-"+I and approaches zero as
n + cc. Let AP be the perturbation matrix
 82 Modem Multfuariable Control Analysls Chap. 3

that is, P - h P is a singular matrix. g ( P ) is in the order of a(AP). Looking at

Equation (3-j), the disturbance A D has therefore caused the closed-loop system P
- AP to have zero eigenvalues even though the eigenvalues of the nominal system
P are all equal to - 1 [Hewer et al., 1988(a)].

3.2 SENSITMTY AND COMPLEMENTARY SENSITMTY FUNCTIONS

Consider the system depicted in Figure 3-3. In control system design, typical re-
quirements are (1) closed-loop stability, (2) disturbance rejection, (3) tracking ca-
pability, (4) noise insensitivity, (5) robustness against plant uncertainty, and (6)
functionality under component failures. It will be shown in this section that, under
mild assumptions, the sensitivity and the complementary sensitivity function play
crucial roles in characterizing the feedback performance. That is, the singular values
of the sensitivity and the complementary sensitivity function can be measured in
order to assess the robustness.
First, consider the disturbance rejection property; the transmission from the
disturbance source d to the output y is the sensitivity function So:

The smaller the sensitivity function, the better the disturbance rejection prop-
erty. Similarly, the tracking error as a function of the reference input r is e = (1 +
GK)-' r. Again, the smaller the value of (I + GK)-' is, the smaller the tracking
+
error will be. Next, consider that the plant is perturbed as (I A)-'G for some
uncertainty A. The uncertainty block matrix A can be used to represent low-fre-
quency parameter errors or the changing number of right half-plane poles of the
plant [Doyle et al., 19821. After some manipulations, it can be shown that the system
+ + '
remains stable if A is a stable transfer function and [I (I GK) - A] is nonsingular
+
for all w. This implies that the sensitivity matrix (1 GK)-' must be small such
that g (1 + GK) > 5 (A), which in turn means that I + G K + A is nonsingular.
Since I + GK + A is nonsingular and det(1 + (1 + GK)-'A) = det(I + GK)-'
det(1 + GK + A), the matrix I + (I + GK)-'A will be nonsingular. Another
function that is useful in characterizing the robust stability is the complementary
sensitivity function To(s) = G K ( l + GK)-'. Let the plant transfer function be
disturbed as ( I + A(s))C(s) for some stable A(s) representing sensor error or ne-

Controller
K(s)

Figure 3-3 Feedback System

Sec. 3.2 Sensitivity and Complementary Sensitivity Functions 83

glected high-frequency dynamics. Assume that the maximum singular value of A(s)
is bounded by the inequality -d[A(jw)] < e m ( j w ) for all w 5 0. Then the robust
stability in the high-frequency region is guaranteed if the nominal system is asymp-
totically stable and the following condition is satisfied [Doyle and Stein, 19811:

-d[GK(;o){l + GK(;~)}-'1 < l/ern(;w) for a l l o such that e m ( o ) B 1 (3-7)

The system remains robustly stable if Equation (3-7) is true. That is, the smaller
-
u [ G K ( I + GK)-'(jw)] is, or the smaller the maximum singular value of the com-
plementary sensitivity function is, the better the robust stability will be. Also, the
+
noise effect at the output node y is y = - GK(1 GK)-'r. Hence, the smaller
GK(1 + G K ) - ' is, the better the noise immunity will be. Similar arguments can
+
be made for the sensitivity function (I KG)-' and the complementary sensitivity
+
function K G ( 1 K G ) - ' at the plant input node. More interpretations of the sen-
sitivity and complementary sensitivity functions can be found in Cruz and Perkins
[I9641 and Kwakernaak [1985]. Hence, many feedback properties can be represented
in terms of these two functions, and the robustness analysis can be done by inves-
tigating the size (singular values) of the sensitivity and the complementary sensitivity
functions.
For a particular class of problems, the control design technique that reduces
the size of these two functions or their combinations directly leads to a robust design.
There are, however, important fundamental limitations that restrict the achievable
performance. The most important one is due to the fact that So + To = (I +
+
GK)-' + G K ( 1 GK)-' = I and (I KG)-' + + +
KG(1 KG)-' = I. Thus,
it is impossible to make both functions small at the same time, and trade-offs have
to be made. In general one requires the sensitivity function to be small in the low-
frequency range (to reject disturbance) and the complementary sensitivity function
to be small in the high-frequency range (to be robust against high-frequency un-
certainties). Since at low frequencies the loop gain is high, the sensitivity function
in the low-frequency range can be approximated as S o ( j o ) = (I + GK)-' ==
( G K ) - ' ( j o ) . Also, since at high frequencies the loop gain is low, the complemen-
tary sensitivity function in the high-frequency range can be approximated as To(jo)
= GK(1 + GK)-' = GK(jw). These two requirements simply show that the loop
gain G K must be large at low frequencies for good tracking performance and small
at high frequencies for robustness.
o n e ' drawback of using the singular value in measuring robustness is its con-
servativeness. Conservativeness results from the structure and the nature of the
uncertainty. For a repeated, block-diagonal, or real uncertainty, a less conservative
measure has to be adopted. The structured singular value (to be discussed in Section
3.4) represents one attempt in reducing the conservativeness of the singular value.
In the following section, another feature of singular value will be discussed,
that is, how the singular value analysis of the complementary sensitivity and sen-
sitivity functions is translated into feedback design requirements.
 84 Modem Plultivariable Control Analusis Chap. 3

3.3 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Design requirements which the control system must satisfy in general are: (1) low
sensitivity property, a low-frequency requirement; (2) fast response characteristic,
an intermediate-frequency requirement; and (3) large stability margins, a high-fre-
quency requirement. One of the design methods which can handle these require-
ments explicitly is the frequency response method of classical control theory. How-
ever, these classical techniques cannot be directly extended to multivariable control
systems in general. Performance specifications and stability robustness requirements
for multivariable control systems can be examined by singular value plots in the
frequency domain. The plots corresponding to the maximum and minimum singular
values over a given frequency range can be established as the design criteria for a
multivariable control system design.

Low-frequency requirement. From Equation (3-6), the largest singular

value of the sensitivity matrix can be written as

where, as defined in Equation (3-I), E and g represent the maximum and minimum
singular values, respectively. In general, the upper bound p ( o ) must satisfy 0 <
p ( o ) 1 to obtain a sensitivity reduction property. Using the well-known inequality
- + A] 2 g [ A ] - 1 in Equation (3-8), a sufficient condition of Equation (3-8)
o[l
can be given as
1
dcK(jw)l> dw)+ 1 f o r o < o,

Since g [ G K ( j o ) ]rolls off with the gradient of -20 dB1dec above the maximum
frequency of the open-loop poles, the upper-bound frequency in Equation (3-
9) has to be lower than the maximum open-loop pole frequency. Following Ohta
and Fujimori [1988],the bound p ( o ) is studied more carefully as follows. T o restrict
p ( o ) to values less than unity means that the sensitivity and the response to dis-
turbances are reduced to at least k ( ~x ) 100%. This also means that the maximum
steady-state error will be decreased by a factor of p(0) as follows. When r(s) in
Figure 3-3 is a step function given by r(s) = [I, . . . , 1IT/s = Hls, following
Figure 3-3, the steady-statc crror e, can be written as
1
P--=
-5
e , = lim SSO H = So(0)H (3- 10)

The maximum singular value of e, becomes E[e,] = if[So(O)H]S F [ S o ( O ) ] ] E [ H ] .

Therefore, E[e,] 5 p(O)if[H].

High-frequency requirement. The rcquircmcnt in thc high-fr~qucnc)~

region is to make a [ G K ( j w ) ]as small as possiblc. As shown in Ohta and Fujimori
[1988],the upper bound of a multiplicative uncertainty of the model is assumcd to
be denoted as t',,(w). Then, the condition of stability robustness can be expressed
as F[GK(jw)] < l/t,.(w) for t',,,(w) > 1. Thus, the singular value of the comple-
mentary sensitivity matrix has to be less than a given upper
- - bound. This condition
is effective for suppressing the effect of measurement noises as well.

Intermediate-frequency requirement or crossover frequency.

The crossover frequency w, is related to the response speed of the system. The larger
w, is, the faster the achievable response speed can be. However, a trade-off between
the requirement in the high-frequency region and the response speed must be taken
into acount. This consideration restricts the maximum crossover frequency w,,,,
below the crossover frequency of t',,(w), and the minimum crossover frequency
w,,,, will be determined from the settling time T,,which is an alternative measure
of the response speed. Both measures ofw, and T, are closely related with the closed-
loop poles. As shown in Ohta and Fujimori [1988], a unity feedback system is
considered with the transfer function G(s) = o:/[s(s +
25w,)]. When 0 < 5 < 1,
the crossover frequency and the settling time within 5 percent error of the command
input are given as w, = w,,[(4i4 + 1)'12 - 2(2]1'2 and

T , is inversely proportional to the real part of the closed-loop pole. The smaller 5
is and the larger o,, is, the larger w, becomes. In addition, the value of w,,,, that
gives a desirable settling time will be determined according to Equation (3-11). A
typical requirement is shown in Figure 3-4. Design engineers then shape the loop
transfer function to meet the desired requirements. There exists a fundamental lim-
itation here due to the right half-plane poles and zeros. For the system to be stable,
when the plant (or controller) has right half-plane zeros, the sensitivity function

dB
Roll-Off C.baracIcristiu

Robust Stability
Requirement

Figure 3-4 Singular Value Plots and Constraints for the Loop Transfer Function
GK(jw)
 86 Modem Multluariable Control Analysis Chap. 3

must be greater than 1 over some frequency range. O n the other hand, for a plant
having right half-plane poles, its complementary sensitivity function must be greater
than 1 over some frequency range. These fundamental limitations set up the bottom
line for design engineers in judging the achievable performance.

3.4 STRUCTURED SINGULAR VALUE

It is a fact in engineering practice that any model used in the design process is at
best an approximation tb the actual system. The difference between the physical
svstem and its mathematical model is called plant uncertaintv. This inevitable mod-
eling error will cause performance degradation and stability problems if plant un-
certainties are not accounted for during the design process. For single-input single-
output (SISO) systems, the standard frequency domain techniques such as Nyquist
diagram, Bode plot, root locus, inverse Nyquist, and Nichol's chart can all be used
.
effectively to ensure robust stability and certain desired performance characteristics.
However, these techniques do not readily extend to multivariable systems in general.
Singular value analysis discussed in Section 3.1 was introduced as a candidate
for a multivariable robustness measure in the late 1970s. In principle, the stability
margin of a multivariable system can be measured in terms of the maximum singular
value of a certain transfer function matrix if the plant uncertainty is unstructured
[Chen and Desoer, 1981; Doyle and Stein, 1981; Kimura, 1984; Lehtomaki, 19811.
Unfortunately, using singular value analysis for testing stability robustness is usually
too conservative because the actual plant uncertainties are more or less structured
in some way. This motivates the definition of the structured singular value.
In Doyle 119821, it is shown that any norm-bounded perturbation problem,
regardless of structure, can be rewritten as a structured block diagonal perturbation
problem. Consider, for example, a linear multivariablc plant G(3) with two mu]-
tiplicative perturbations appearing simultaneously a t the inputs and outputs as shown
in Figure 3-5. Hcre, K(s) is a stabilizing controller for the nominal plant G(s). In
a straightforward way Figure 3-5 can be equivalently redrawn as shown in Figure
3-6. In Figure 3-6, the combination of G(s) and K(s) inside the square box can be
denoted by a nominally stable closed-loop system M(s), a transfer function matrix
from [ d r d' vT] to [,I, T r12T e T 1. It is clear that the perturbations can then be rcp-
rescntcd by a block diagonal feedback matrix, that is.

Note that the pcrturbed systcln in Figurc 3-6 is just a special casc of the gcncral
structured block diagonal perturbation problem as shown in Figurc 3-7 with 11 =
2, A = block diag { A , , A,), 2 = [ d l , d2IT. Z = [n,, n2IT, 1,. = r, and = E . 11,
Figure 3-7, M(s) has the following form:
Sec. 3.4 Structured Singular Value 87

I+A,(s) G(s) t-+l I+Az(s) Figure 3-5 T w o Multiplicative

Perturbations Appear Simultaneously a t
the Plant Input and Output

The issue of robust stability becomes one of characterizing the set of allowable
perturbations such that the closed-loop system remains stable. Note also the ap-
pearances of the sensitivity and the complementary sensitivity functions in the matrix
M(s).
It is well known that the systcm in Figure 3-7 is stable if and only if the
polynomial 'PIlnr(s)'PA(s) det [I - ibl(s)A(s)]has roots with strictly negative real
parts, where 'Picl(s)and 'PA($)are the characteristic polynomials of M ( s ) and A(s),
respectively. Since M ( s ) is stable, all the roots of 9 m ( s ) have strictly negative real
parts. Thus, if A(s) is also stable, the system is stable if and only if det [I - M ( j w )
+
A ( j o ) ] 0 for all A and o E R. A set of structured block diagonal perturbations
is defined as
A(s) = block diag [ A ,( s ) , Az(s), . . .
(3- 13)
Ak(s) stable, E I A k ( j o ) ]5 6(w), for all k
Then the structured singular value (SSV) [Doyle, 19821 is defined as

The following theorem is just a direct result of the definition (3-14)

Theorem 3-1. The system in Figure 3-7 is stable for all A(s) E X ( 6 ( o ) ) if
an only if
p [ M ( j w ) ] < 1/6(w) for all u E R (3- 15)
Note that the perturbation 6(w) and the structured singular value p [ M ( j w ) ] are
frequency dependent rather than constants. From the preceding theorem it can be
seen that the stability margin of the system M(s) can be defined by the structured
singular value p [ M ( j o ) ] .
While the p function is conceptually simple, its computation poses a challenge.

e +
Figure 3-6 Equivalent System Diagram of the System Shown in Figure
88 Modem Multluarlable Control Analusis Chap. 3

.
a = [dl, 4- .... %? n = [nl,
T
nz, .... bl Figure 3-7 Structured Block Diagonal
Perturbation with A = Block Diag { A , ,
I . . . , Am)

When complex perturbations are allowed, some earlier results by Doyle [I9821prove
to be very useful:

where p(M) is the maximum modulus of the eigenvalue of M [Horn and Johnson,
19851. Moreover, let it = { U E Q I U*U = I ) and CT) = { D I D A = A D for A
E Q), then

p(M) = k(UM) = p(DMD-') for all U E and D E 9

It follows that
max p(MU) I k(M) 5 inf ~ ( D M D - ' ) (3-1 7 )
UEU DEm

It turns out that the left part of the preceding inequality is actually an equality, and
this fact provides an approach to compute the p function involving multiextremum
optimization. Under some restrictive conditions, namely the number of blocks
m a 3, the right part of the inequality in Equation (3-17) also becomes an equality
[Doyle, 19821. It should be noted, however, that when only real perturbations are
allowed, the preceding relation no longer holds, and the other methods hare to be
pursued. At present, there are several algorithms to compute structured singular
values [Doyle, 1982; Fan and Tits, 19861. However, no single algorithm is univcr-
sally superior. The situation is worse where there are mixed (real and dynamic),
repeated uncertainties.
It must also be noted that the structured singular value is merely an analytical
tool, offering no assistance for controller design if the robust stability test (3-15)
fails. Recent progress in robust controller synthesis using a combination of the H"
optimization technique and structured singular value has been reported in Doyle
11983, 1984). Although this so-called synthesis approach does not provide an exact
solution for the robust perforn~anceproblem, it often yields a satisfactory (sub-
optimal) solution. Further research is thus necdcd in this area.
Auothcr alternative measure of stability margin is called the block-limiting
norm, proposed by Fan and Fu [1989], who extcndcd thc notion of a limiting norm
[Pokrovskii, 19791 by associating with it the block structure that forms thc basis of
the structurcd singular value. It is shown that the block-limiting norm is no ICSS
than the structured singular
- value and no grcatcr than the infimum of the scalcd
maximum singular value. More interestingly, where thcrc are no morc than thrcc
blocks, the block-limiting norm is cqual to thc structurcd singular value. Unfor-
tunatcly, a computational mcthod for the block-limiting norm is also unavailable
to date.
 See. 3.5 General Robustness Analysis 8Q

3.5 GENERAL ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

As described in Section 3.4, the general framework of robustness analysis can be

represented in Figure 3-7. Any system may be rearranged to fit in this general
framework, although the interconnection structure can become quite complicated
for complex systems. The uncertainty considered here may be modeled in two ways,
either as external inputs or as perturbations to the nominal model. The performance
of a system is measured in terms of the behavior of the outputs or errors. Robustness
analysis is heavily related to the assumptions made concerning the input signal, the
uncertainty, and the performance requirement. Assume that the transfer matrix from
I, to can be represented in the linear fractional map

where M , , are real, rational, proper, stable transfer functions. This assumption can
be made without loss of generality because nonlinear or nonrational parts can be
regarded as uncertainties, and the system has to be stable before robustness analysis
is carried out. Depending on the assumptions made on the input, uncertainty, and
performance, diffcrent robustness measures are used as shown in Table 3-1, which
is similar to Table 1 of Doyle [1983]. Thus, robustness analysis boils down to the
computation of a certain "norm" of a particular transfer function. In some cases,
this transfer function is a combination of the sensitivity and the complementary
sensitivity functions. Also, the weighting functions used in design process are ab-
sorbed into the interconnection structure. The definitions of each "norm" follow.

where u i is the ith singular value, E is the maximum singular value, and p,(M),
defined in Equation (3-14), is a measure of the amount of structured disturbance
that can be tolerated without destabilizing the system.
T o conclude this subsection, two important theorems from Table 3-1 are
stated. Let

-
BA = {A E Q 1 ll A 112 5 1 )
This leads to the following theorems.

Theorem R S (Robust Stability). F,,(M, A) is stable for all A E a if and

only if II M22 1Iw = SUP ~ [ M 2 2 ( j w )<
I 1.
0
 90 Modern Multivarlable Control Analysk Chap. 3

TABLE 3-1 VARIOUS ROBUSTNESS MEASURES

w Perturbatiqn P e r f o m Robustness
Measure
1
YIc(t) I ~ ) =I I b(t-II) A =0 weT@)e(t)l < 1 -
2z 11%<12 <1

Ie(t) = Ieo6(t)
T 1
qIcoIco) = I A=O w T ( t ) e(t)l < 1 -
2x ~~~~~2 1
-
!\lc\12 1 A=O Ilel12 < 1 lly7J=< 1

IIIcllz 5 1 IlAllm < 1 Ilel12 < 11M1111= < 1

II1cll.c 5 1 A=O llella < 1 11%111 5 1

llAll.c < 1
~ ~ I 5e 1~ ~ 2 A = Diag (A, ... A$ JlelJ2c oc l l ~ ~ l <l 1
p

llAll= < 1
-I I I c 5~ ~1 ~ A = a g ( A A Ilel12<1 IIMllr < 1

Theorem R P (Robust Peuformance). F,(M, A) is stable and sup II F.(jo) 112

W

5 1 for all A E &$ if and only if 1) M 1, < 1.

3.6 ROBUSTNESS OF REAL PERTURBATIONS

The general robustness analysis provides a framework in robustness margin com-

putation. However, for all practical purposes, there are other definitions or alter-
native algorithms that achieve the same goal. Robustness measures using graphic
metric [Vidyasagar, 19841, hypersphere radius [Bhattacharyya, 19871, and Khari-
tonov's theorem [Barmish and DeMarco, 19871 have been proposed. A particularly
important problem in feedback analysis is to compute the multivariable real-per-
turbed stability margin. Using p. computation to evaluate the real-perturbed stability
margin tends to be conservative. In the following, several techniques for assessing
the real-perturbed stability margin will be discussed based on Hewer et al. [1988(a)-
(c), 19891. A state-space model for real additive perturbation errors that is algebra-
ically and dynamically equivalent to Doyle's SSV is introduced here. Based on this
theory the problem is cast as a spectral assignment problem employing output feed-
Set. 3.6 Robustness of Real Perturbattons 91

back, where the variable feedback matrix is restricted to the block diagonal elements
represented in Figure 3-7. Next, a link between root locus and SSV is established.
T o bring out the utility of this theory a Monte Carlo search algorithm is used in
conjunction with some graphical convergence strategies to compute for third-
order systems. The Monte Carlo algorithm was used by Hewer et al. [1988(a)] to
compute the SSV for the autopilot example first studied by De Gaston and Safonov
[I9881 with good numerical agreement. For this example, the bounds resulting from
the Monte Carlo algorithm are sharper than those obtained with the algorithm used
in Fan and Tits [I9861 and Doyle's estimates [Doyle, 19821, which is in line with
the well-known fact that their estimates are valid for both complex and real per-
turbations. The Monte Carlo algorithm is a "brute force" approach and should only
be used in a concurrent manner with other structured singular value algorithms and
inequalities.

3.6.1 State-Space Model for Additive Uncertainty

Similar to a frequency-domain formulation, in state space formulation the system

can also be arranged such that it consists of a nominal forward block

k = Ax + [Bl, Bz] [:I. [:I = [S:] (3-19)

with uncertainty expressed as feedback perturbation

The matrices A, B1, B2, C1, C2 are of dimension n x n, n x [, n x k, p x n,

and k x n, respectively. The state vector x, the input vectors rl and r2, and the
output vectors yl and y2 all have compatible dimensions. Taking the Laplace trans-
form of Equation (3-19) yields the following two-port (p +
k) X ([ +
k) block
transfer matrix [Hewer et al., 1988(b)]:

with the transfer matrices G;,(s) = C,(sl - A)-'B, (i = 1, 2; j = 1,2). The triples
(A, B1, C1)and (A, B2, C2)are both minimal (that is, controllable and observable)
realizations of the respective transfer matrix G ~(s)I and G22(5). The conditions under
which the transfer matrix Gll(s) is exponentially stable (exp. st.) [Desoer and Chan,
19731 are that it is strictly proper (that is, Gll(m) = 0) and that all of its poles are
contained in the open left half-plane. The p x 4 loop transfer matrix Gll(s) in-
corporates both open-loop plant dynamics and any compensation employed. The
advantage of the state-space formulation is that it is convenient to treat parametric
uncertainty, where the perturbations are necessarily real. In effect, the matrix A is
perturbed to A + AA, where AA = BzSACz. The matrix S is a k x k real-valued
92 Modem Multiuariable Control Analusis Chap. 3

diagonal scaling matrix, and A is a k x k member of Q. The p function is defined

as (where S has been absorbed into B2 or CZ)

A E Q and det(jw1 - A

Introducing the set

- B2AC2) = 0 for some 0 5 w Ia:
I
48) = {A E Qs 1 det(jw1 - A - B2AC2) = 0 for some 0 I w 5 m)

The k function can be written as p,,(A, B2, C2) = SUP

Ae(-) 11 A 11'
3.6.2 State-SpaceSingular Values

The following theorem, which is proved in Hewer et al. [1988(c)] is a state-space

robust stability theorem.
Theorem. Let (A, B1, C1) be an exp. st. system, assume e(8) is nonempty,
and assume that ( A + AA, B1, C,) is a minimal system for every A E Qs. The
system in (3-19) and (3-20) is exp. st. with respect to the real perturbation set Qs
if and only if p,(A, BZ, C2).6 < 1.
The following corollary, which establishes the basic link between the fre-
quency-derived SSV and the eigenvalue-based SSV, depends on the following well-
known identity. Let Wand Z be n x k and k x n dimensional matrices, respectively;
then
det(lk + ZW) = det(1, + WZ) (3-21)
Corollary. For every s with real part 2 0 and every A E e(8), p.,(A, B2,
CZ) = p(Cz(s1 - A)-'Bz).
The proof of this corollary is given in Hewer et al. [1988(b)]. These results
make it evident that the additive perturbation structure laid out previously produces
a workable and rigorous model that yields a nonconservative state-space test for
real perturbations. With Equation (3-21), it is possible to construct a Monte Carlo-
based algorithm that reduces the computation of p., to an eigenvalue search. The
corollary forms the basis for the Monte Carlo search algorithm outlined in Section
3.6.4 and in the appendix of Hewer et al. [1988(b)], reducing the computation of
p. to an eigenvalue problem. The Monte Carlo eigenvalue search is proposed as a
heuristic tool to supplement other algorithms.

3.6.3 Root Locus

This section focuses on the link between root locus and SSV and is based on Hewer
et al. [1988(b)]. A comparison is made between the stability margins predicted by
root locus for second- and third-order polynomials and those predicted by SSV
For second-order polynomials they are identical, but for third-order systems they
are distinct. Let g ( s ) denote a strictly proper nth-degree transfer function, and let
( A , b2, c2) be the minimal control-canonical form realization such that g ( s ) =
c2 ($1 - A ) - ' b 2 . Using the basic matrix identity Equation (3-21) results in the
following equation which relates root locus and the spectral set e(6), for some pa-
rameter A:

for every s such that s l , - A is nonsingular. Any polynomial subject to additive

perturbations can be represented as a dynamical control system such that ( A , b ) is
in controller canonical form, and the nonzero coefficients in the row vector c r e p
resent the additive perturbations of A . Thus, as an additive robustness measure,
root locus represents a uniform affine shift of all the perturbed coefficients. Consider
the third-order stable polynomial p ( s ) = s3 + a2s2 + a l s + a. and the canonical
form

+
Let the perturbed polynomial be p p ( s ) = s3 + a2s2 a l ( l + A l ) s + ao(l + Ao).
The Hermite matrix [Lancaster and Tismenetsky, 19851for the third-order perturbed
polynomial is

Given that the original polynomial is stable, it can be concluded that the perturbed
polynomial is stable if and only if H p ( A ) is positive definite, or, equivalently, its
leading principle minors are all positive. Applying the latter test to H p ( 0 ) produces
the well-known result that p ( s ) is stable if and only if a0 > 0 , at > 0, a2 > 0, and
ala2 > ao. The perturbation matrix A A for root locus is Ab2c2, and the perturbation
matrix A A for the structured singular value is A A = B2AC2

where the diagonal matrix is A = diag(A0, A l ) . By Hermite's test p p ( s ) is unstable

when the first leading principle minor in H , ( A ) is zero. The gain margin predicted
by root locus would be unity at w = 0 . The structured singular value spectral set
e(6) = { A E Q s I det(jw1 - A ' - B 2 A C 2 ) = 0 for some 0 Iw < m)
would contain the matrix A = diag(1, I ) , which is not necessarily the minimum
element. Now, consider the second leading principle minor of H p ( A ) , which can
94 Modem Multivarlable Control Analysis Chap. 3

vanish whenever the linear equation A . = m A l +m - 1 is satisfied, where the

positive real variable m = alazlao. The matrix

(
A = diag 0, l i m )

is always a member of e(S). Moreover, the maximum singular value of A is always

less than 1 inasmuch as in is always greater than 1. Thus, the results of the root
locus and the structured singular value tests are not the same even for this simple
problem. Retracing these steps for the second-order polynomial a(s) = s2 + a l s +
a,,, it is easy to see that p,(A, b, c) is always equal to the root-locus value as long
as the 2-norm is used for comparison.

3.6.4 A Monte Carlo Computation

As an application of this theory, the Monte Carlo search algorithm is used t o com-
pute a pe(A, Bz, CZ) for a third-order system, following Hewer et al. [1988(b)].
The system matrices are structured as in Equation (3-22) with a" = 1, a, = 2, a 2
= 2. T o estimate the 1.1. function, Equation (3-17) is used. Standard eigenvalue
routines were employed in the computation of the spectral radius. Its upper bound
is computed using a balancing algorithm. These inequalities hold true for real and
complex perturbations, so they will be generally conservative for real perturbations.
However, they do establish the following range where the robustness margins are
smallest. Also, they serve as a useful guide to the variation in the robustness margins
as functions of frequency. The Monte Carlo robustness margins predict 11 A l l = ~
,7268 at the frequency w = ,7678. Doyle's inequality predicts p = 2.3789 at the
frequency o = .8214. To transform this to a comparable delta, first take the recip-
rocal of p. which is ,42036 and then compute 11 diag(.42036, .42036) = 0.5945.
The Monte Carlo search uses an F-norm, which represents a 2-sphere for the
Qa set that describes the robustness region. The Monte Carlo algorithm is described
as follows:

1. Generate A randomly with uniform probabilistic distribution such that

k
Z A ? = 1.
%-I

2. Start with known upper bound a for e(6).

3. Set a C 2 a until either (a) or (b) as follows happens:
a. A + aB2AC2has an eigenvalue with a positive real part. Go to Step 4.
b. a is greater than some cutoff value. Let a -a. Start Step 3 again.
4. Use bisection to obtain an a such that A + aBzAC2 has an cigenvalue suf-
ficiently close to the irnaginary axis.
Sec. 3.6 Robustness of Real Perturbations 95

5. Save a. Repeat Steps 1 to 4 a sufficiently large number of cirncs. The minimum

a is an estimation of robust margin I( A 1, ,.

These same Montc Carlo techniques arc used to compute the robustness margin for
the example of a typical SISO autopilot problem. These examples provide firm
support for using the Monte Carlo scarch algorithm to find y for interesting control
problems. However, as mentioned previously, the Monte Carlo scarch is only a
heuristic tool that is best utilized in conjunction with other algorithms. It must
always be kept in mind that the Montc Carlo scarch may deliver a reasonable result
but not ncccssarily the supremum.

3.6.5 A Monte Carlo Analysis for Second-Order

Systems

As a second example, consider the following second-order system:

A = [-: -1, ='[:I, BI CI = [ I , 0,. B2 = [: c2= [i:]

Let 0 be a random variable that is uniformly distributed in the interval ( - a , a ) ,
and let A = diag(r sin 0 , r cos 0) where r is a scaling parameter such that A E e(8).
The characteristic equation for this problem is the random polynomial
A' + (3 - r cos @)A + (2 - r sin 0) = 0
Now A E e(6) if and only if the following two cases occur:

These equations define a random variable r ( 0 ) which is a member of P(8) on the

interval [2, 3/cos(arc tan(2/3))]. The cumulative distribution function for the random
variable can be derived using standard transformation formulas in Papoulis [1984].
Upon integrating,

P(r(0) 5 d} = [2/a arc cos(3Id) + f(2/d)]/2 3 5 d 5 3.6056

where f(a) = 1 - 2 / a arc sin a. The density function corresponding to this random
variable has a discontinuity a t d = 2 and d = 3. In the absence of a numerically
robust and efficient algorithm to compute y, the Monte Carlo search algorithm
combined with graphical convergence tools make for a practical, working method
that can be used to augment the Doyle bounds, and the De Gaston-Safonov and
Fan-Tits algorithms.
Sec 3.6 Robwtnes of Real Pemubatlons

Frequency At A2 A3

Monte
Carlo 7.753 .I473 e.2645 -.1933

Penalty
Function 7.697 ,1229 -.3 164 -.?391

102 t 5% ESTIYATES VERSbS FRESUENCY .:..-. ..- -

. .. .
.. '..'..
.....
1.
* '1. 4 7

S -
L

...
1
1
S
V ,,,,,..,.. .""
., ......
,,...'
. .' ..I.

'1
(,,,..,.,.......l,.#-.....'~~
E
I' 10' q
9
T
M
A
..
T
E .
S *.- --.---
10"
1oO
- ---*--C--*r---

-'0'
FREQUENCY
('3
- RAD/SEC

Figure 3-8 Robustness of Real Perturbations (From [Hewer et at., 1988(a)] with
permission from S C S )
98 Modern Multiuarlable Control Analysis Chap. 3

3.6.6 Stability Margin Computation

For the example problem considered here, the original block diagram is shown in
Figure 3-8a. This example is found in De Gaston [I9851 and includes a number of
essential features of an NGC system. The purpose of this example is to demonstrate
state-space modeling and to illustrate Doyle's claim that a linear system can be
rearranged to match Figure 3-7 and include some compound bounds for IJ.. The
nominal parameter values are: K = 800, z = 2, p = 10, o2 = 6, w-, = 4, o,,=
4, o,,= 6. The block diagram in Figure 3-8a is transformed into one with scaled
perturbations, and results in the diagram shown in Figure 3-8b. The scaling is
selected such that a value of + 1 for the perturbation represents 100 percent of the
nominal parameter. The Ai (i = 1, 2, 3) represent real perturbations and o,((i =
1, 2) are the nominal poles and scaling parameters such that the perturbation rep-
resents a percentage of the nominal parameter [Hewer et al., 1988(a)]. Transforming
the block diagram in Figure 3-8a to the desired form is accomplished by rearranging
the loops at the inputs to the perturbation blocks, which is illustrated in Figure 3-
-

8b. Treating the inputs and outputs of these blocks as separate system inputs and
outputs, respectively, conventional block algebra can then be used with Figure 3-
8c to obtain the desired M matrix by evaluating all nine transfer functions in Figure
3-8d. The original system inputs and outputs are no longer represented in Figure
3-8c. The exact entries for M are found in Figure 3-8e. The values are identical
with De Gaston except for sign differences. Following Hewer et al. [1989], the
controllable and observable linear dvnamical svstem for Figure " 3-8a can be derived
using the following state variables x l , x2, x-,, and x4 that are identified in the same
figure.

These equations yield the following dynamical system ( A , B1, C1):

with perturbation matrices:

B2 = [ -; !]
0

0 -1
2 =
c [. : :]
0 0 0 1
A = diag(Al, A2, A;)
Sec. 3.6 Robustness of Real Perturbatlons B9

and scaling matrix S = diag(K, w2, ~ 3 ) The

. perturbation matrix 6A with 6K =
KAl, 6w2 = -oS,A2, 603 = - w,,A3

factors into the product 6A = BzSACz. Before the state-space equivalence of M(s)
in Figure 3-8e can be determined, the inverse of the matrix (sl - A) must be
determined. Let (sl - A);, denote the ( n - 1) x (n - 1) matrix formed by deleting
row i and column j from A, and define the cofactor matrix

Then s l - A has an inverse equal to det-'(sl - A), multiplied by the transpose

of the matrix obtained from (sl - A) by replacing each element by its cofactor
whenever r 65 R ( A ) where R(,-l) is the spectrum of A. Now for the De Gaston
example, it is easily shown that 6 = det(s1 - A ) where 6 is defined by the equation
in Figure 3-8e. The transpose of the cofactor matrix for ( s l - A ) is:

It is not difficult to verify that the matrix M(s) = SC2(sl - A ) - ' B 2 is identical to
the transfer matrix in Figure 3-8e. The transfer matrix with input scaling Ml(s) =
Cz(:l - A)-'BZS is not equal to ,W(S) with output scaling. However, by the
fundamental determinant identity the polynomials in the three variables A 1 , A2, and
113 defined by the equations det(1 - Ml(s)A) and det(1 - M(s)A) are identical.
This observation leads to the following theorem about input-output scaling.
Theorem. If a ( A ) < 0 and e(A, B2, CZ. A) is nonempty, then for any
nonsingular transformation T that coinmutes with the members of A
p(A, B2T. C r , A) = k(A, Br, TC2, A)
Using standard root-locus techniques on the nominal system in Figure 3-Sa, the
following stability margins can be obtained [Hewer et al., 1988(a)]: A1 = ,931, A2
= - ,481, A, = - ,652. However, the simultaneous use of these marginal values
results in an unstable perturbed system. The scaling bound in Figure 3-8g predicts
instability for A i > .15 ( i = 1, 2, 3) at the frequency 7.326. Note that the margin
of stability occurs at the reciprocal of the peak. Using the Monte Carlo algorithm
and one called the penalty function technique, Figure 3-8f lists two possible near-
minimum values for the joint variation in A. Figure 3-8g shows some bounds for
CL. Curve n is a plot of the minimum singular value of M, while curve b is a plot
 100 Modem Multluariable Controf Analysis Chap. 3

of the spectral norm of DMD-' using a balancing algorithm in Garbow et al. [1977].
A balancing algorithm is discussed in Osborne [1960]. An algorithm due t o Fran
and Tits [I9861 was used to generate curve c, and curve d is a plot of the spectra]
radius of M. Recall that the svectral radius is the maximum absolute value over the
eigenvalues of M. Curves a an2 d can be computed using standard routines in arbo ow
et al. [1977].

3.7 MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS

The Monte Carlo method [Hammersley and Handscomb, 19641 is the most general
method available for estimating the performance of noise-driven time-varying sys-
tems, being applicable to linear as well as nonlinear systems. The method is founded
on direct and repeated simulation,'involving a large number of random error factors.
Because of this, much of the computational work revolves around looking a t a
sufficient number of test cases plus postprocessing of the resultant data in order to
determine the average system behavior. If there is a minor drawback to this method,
it is the often large number of simulations needed to achieve an adequate level of
confidence in the accuracy of the results. For this reason, it is primarily used as an
evaluation tool. Owing to its wide range of applicability and the ease with which
it can be used, however, it remains perhaps the most widely used tool for performing
nonlinear statistical analysis. In the case of systems that are driven by white-noise
disturbances, these disturbances are approximated by Gaussian random number gen-
erators. The standard deviation of these generators, which are used to approximate
white noisc, relate to thc spccial density of the white noise being simulated by:

where R k is the covariancc of the Gaussian N(0, Rk)noise gencrator, @ is the power
spectral dcnsity of the white noise in Hertz, and A t is the interval of simulation
integration (time spacing bctwccn random nunlbcr calls). Equation (3-23) allows
for the approximation of white noise since elements in the rcal covariance matrix
Rb(t) take on infinite valucs. If the bandwidth of thc noise is much greater than the
systcm bandwidth, then Equation (3-23) is accurate to thc cxtcnt that the noisc
appcars white to thc systcm. Bccausc thc integration intcrval A t is usually taken
much sn~allerthan the sn~allcstsystcm time constant, the noisc in fact looks white
as far as thc systcnl is concerned. Statistical cstialation by the Montc Carlo tccl~niquc
begins by computing thc standard dcviation of the rcsults according to

whcre y (1,) is the mcan valuc of final rcsults 2nd Aidenotes thc numbcr of simulations
in the Montc Carlo proccdurc. Bccausc only a finite numbcr of simulation runs arc
performed, thc standard dcviation dcrived in this mcthod is only approximatc and
Sec 3.7 Monte Carlo AnalysLs

NORMALIZED
CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL

I I I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250
NUMBER OF SAMPLES

X.200 RUN MONTE

CARL0 SAMPLE
SIZE

Figure 3-9 (a) Theoretical Confidence Intervals for Gaussian Distributed Random
Variable (b) Acceleration Limit Study Utilizing Monte Carlo Approach (From [Zar-
chan, 19881 with permission from AGARD)
 102 Modem Multluariable Control Analysls Chap. 3

must itself be treated in a statistical fashion. This gives rise to expressing confidence
in a particular estimate of the standard deviation. The confidence level rises as the
number of simulations is made larger. As an example, for the case in which these
statistics are Gaussian distributed, confidence intervals can be calculated like those
shown in Figure 3-9a. In the case of 50 simulations, the confidence level can be
shown to be around 95 percent, that is, the standard deviation is found to be between
0.85 u and 1.28 a. The uncertainty is reduced even more by increasing the number
of simulations to 200, a sample size that would give rise to a 95 percent confidence
that the standard deviation in fact lies between .91 u and 1.12 u [Zarchan, 19881.
For this reason, confidence levels are usually presented in conjunction with Monte
Carlo data.

Example 3-1. Following Equation (3-24), the miss-distance standard de-

viation is calculated from:

where jj(tf) is the miss distance from the ith run. Following Example 2-2, a 200-
run Monte Carlo simulation was performed of the homing loop of Figure 2-l5a(ii)
and 2-15b, corresponding to the nonlinear mode. In the study conducted by Zarchan
[1988], one of the parameters was the missile acceleration limit. The results of the
study are displayed in Figure 3-9b, which includes the 95 percent confidencc in-
tervals. This study highhghts the effect of the acceleration limit on miss distance.
It can be seen that results approach those of the linear analysis only in the case of
large acceleration limit. It is interesting to note that, even with the large number of
simulation runs, the 95 percent confidence limits point out the high degree of un-
certainty in the answers.

3.8 COVARIANCE AFWYSlS

It is important to be able to calculate the vchicle responsc to random process modcls

such as atmospheric turbulence. Calculating the response of dynamic systems to
random processcs can be achievcd through the use ofthe covariance matrix equation,
which is applicable to both deterministic and random excitation functions. Using
the computer-implemented method of covariance analysis, only one computcr run
is required to do an exact analysis of linear and nonlinear, time-varying noise-driven
systems. Uy directly intcgrating a linear or nonlinear matrix differential equation,
the covariance matrix of thc system state vector is propagated in time to generate
exact time-dependent statistical performance projections of any state. Extensive use
Sec. 3.8 Covariance Analysls 103

of this nlcthod is found with problems involving optimal cstimators, as is shown

in Chapter 4. The linear differential equations rcprcsenting the vehicle's equations
of motion are first written as linear timc-invariant statc equations. The statc equation
includes a term representing the random process input function. The statc vector
is then augmented to include the components of the original statc vectors, the orig-
inal systcnl input, plus any required auxiliary variables, that is, thc auxiliary dis-
turbance statc variables, as shown in Equation (3) ofTable 2-1 where, for simplicity,
D and E are assunled zero from this point on. and where w is a white-noise vector
having PSI1 matrix Q ( t ) which gives the 1'SD function of the white-noise process
a constant value of ( l I 2 n ) Q over all possible values of the circular frequency w. For
example, the properties of the turbulence field are usually specified as PSD functions
making the preceding representation suitable for aeronautical applications. Equation
(3) of Table 2-1 can be used to analyze whole-body motion, flexible motions, and
control system dynamics. Handling unsteady aerodynamic effects can be achieved
through a quasi-steady assumption, through the use of approximate lift-growth
functions, or by the numerical matching of unsteady aerodynamic matrices. Bias
and drift, which are both types of nonwhite-noise inputs, can be handled by white
noise passing through an appropriate shaping filter. It is also interesting to take note
of the covariance matrix of the augmented state and output as follows:
P(t) = E[(x(t) - x)(x(t) - x ) ~ ] , x = E[x(t)] (3-26a)
~,(~)=E[(Y(~)-Y)(Y(~)-Y Y =) E~ []Y, ( t ) l (3-26b)
For the augmented state, the covariance takes on the following matrix form:

...
u u:.> ... 1
u;,,,
u?.~~,~
u;, is used for the variances of the
individual states .u,.

... is used to represent the covariances

between different states xi and xj.

T o take it one step further, the diagonal elements of P(t) denote state variable
variations when the expectations of the disturbance responses are zero. Furthermore,
the off-diagonal elements denote the degree of correlation between the state vari-
ables. In the proceeding discussion, both the system states x and the forcing functions
w are vectors, the elements of which are random variables. For simplicity, the
deterministic inputs u are neglected here. There are two situations (continuous and
discrete cases) to be analyzed. In the first situation, the state vector obeys the linear
relationship Equation (3) of Table 2-1 without the input term Bu. The covariance
matrix is defined as in Equation (3-26a) and the covariance matrix P satisfies

This equation is used to study the parameters that characterize the state during the
vehicle's flight. Since Equation (3-27) can be integrated, the statistical properties
104 Modem Multluarlable Control Analysis Chap. 3

of P(t) can be analyzed directly in only one computer run. The solution of Equation
(3-27) gives the augmented state covariance matrix, which can be written as

Stability of the augmented dynamic matrix A guarantees that P(W) = 0.SO that, if
A is stable, at steady state 0 = AP +
PAr + NQNr. Using Equation (3-26a),
the covariance matrix Equation (3-26b) is given by P, = CPCr. In the discrete-
state model given by Equation (5) of Table 2-1, assuming 4' ' = 0, the equation for
projecting the error covariance is given by

Furthermore, for a continuous nonlinear dynamic system described by Equation (1)

of Table 2-1, the nonlinear variance equation is approximated by
~ ( t=
) A(x(t), t)P(t) + P(t)AT(x(t), t ) + N(t)Q(t)Nr(t) (3-30)
where A(x(t), t) is the matrix with its ijth element defined by Aci(x(t),t) = [ a f , ( x ( t ) ,
t)]l[dxj]. In the nonlinear discrete case, similar results can be obtained.

Example 3-2. This example, following Zarchan [1979(a)] and Example

2-2, again uses the linear homing guidance loop of Figure 2-15a(ii) and 2-15b to
illustrate here the usefulness of covariance analysis. The system equation expressed
in matrix form is
The state covariance P(t) is obtained by intcgrating the covariance propagation
equation, Equation (3-27), with N equal to an identy matrix. With respect to Equa-
tion (3-27), the preceding equations define A ( t ) , and can be uscd to determine Q ( t )
as follows:

Fi ure 3-10a plots the RMS relative separation between the missile and target,
h, as a function of time, which war found by intcgrating Equation (3-27).
This value becomes the RMS miss distance at if, or the end of flight. That is, RMS

TlME lrecl

a) corariance Ana1y.i~ Provides

RI Trajectory Profile
TlME lucl

b) cwariuc. Malyml. Provldoa

mm Accoloretion Protile

Figure 3-10 Covariance Analysis Provides RMS Trajectory Profile (From [Zar-
than, 1979(a)], 0 1979 AIAA)
 106 Modem MultIuarlable Control Analysis Chap. 3

, (,,,,. Because covariance analysis is capable of generating

miss distance = v ~ ( 3 3)
statistical information corresponding to each state, like the RMS acceleration of
Figures 3-lob, it is possible with this technique to establish the correctness of as-
sumptions concerning system linearity. That is, such an assumption would be val-
idated if there were no acceleration saturation.

3.9 ADJOINT METHOD

The method of adjoints [Besner and Shinar, 1979; Derusso et al., 1970; EASAM,
1969; Howe, 1965; Laning and Battin, 1956; Peterson, 1961; Zarchan, 1979(a)] rep-
resents a widely used technique in guidance system design. This adjoint technique
is founded on the system impulse response, and is capable of analyzing exactly linear,
time-varying noise-driven systems such as a guidance loop in one computer run.
The exact performance projections of any quantity at any instant can be estimated
using this method. Additionally, the information that measures the contribution of
all disturbances (inputs) to the total performance projection (output) can be ex-
tracted. Although it has been used mainly in the past in missile guidance system
design and analysis, the adjoint technique can certainly be applied to many other
problems.

3.9.1 A4joint Philosophy

The impulse response of the adjoint system I* is related to the impulse response of
the original system 1 in the following manner:
I*(tf - ti, tf - to) = I(to, ti) (3-32)
where t , and to are the impulse application and observation times of the original
system, respectively. If it is desired to observe the impulse response of the original
system at the final time tf after several impulses are applied at times t, ( i = 1,
. . . , n), then the system response must be simulated for each of the impulse ap-
plication times to generate [(I/, t,), as demonstrated in Figure 3-lla. For the adjoint
system, however, if the observation time is the final time (to = t,), then only one
adjoint response must be generatcd. Equation (3-32) reduces to I*(tf - I,, 0) =
I((/, 1,). The impulse response of the adjoint system, except for being generatcd
backwards, is identical in evcry aspect to that of the original system. Figures 3-1 la
and 3-llb illustrate the way in which the two responscs are relatcd [Zarchan,
1979(a)].
The system rcsponse y(t) at time t to any input u is given by

T o dctcrminc how the method of adjoints becomes handy in this situation, Equation
(3-32) is substituted into Equation (3-33) to obtain [Pctcrson, 19611
~ c 3c.9 Aaolnt Method

I
Uto, t , )

crvation Time
0

--------

Impulse Application Time.t i tO=ti

Figure 3-11 (a) Generation of I(tf, ti) in Original System (b) Impulse Responses
of Original and Adjoint Systems are Related (From [Zarchan, 1979(a)], 6 1979
AIAA)

using

y(t) = ul 0
t

I*(tf - T . tf - t) U(T) di
Z = t - T
3 y(t)

=lI*(tf-t+z,y-t)u(r-z)dz (3-34)
108 Modem Multiuariable Control Analysis Chap. 3

If the final time t k is the time at which the response is desired, then Equation
(3-34) becomes

The concept of adjoint system can be extended to account for stochastic inputs. A
linear time-varying system that is driven by white noise has a mean square response
[Zarchan, 1979(a)]

where 4, is the spectral density of the white-noise input in units of Hertz, and is
assumed double-sided and stationary. Unfortunately, the many computer runs re-
quired to generate I(tf, t i ) render the direct simulation of Equation (3-36) imprac-
tical, as mentioned previously. Substitution of Equation (3-32) into Equation
(3-36) yields

For the case in which the final time is of interest ( t = tf), Equation (3-37) can be
expressed as

Therefore, the integral of the square of the output of the impulsively driven adjoint
system from t = O to t = tf is equixralent to the mean-square response at time t, of
a linear time-varying system driven by white noise. The RMS value of the output
of the terminal time is the square root of Equation (3-38). The RMS value of the
output of the original system in the presence of a white-noise input is then computed
by first squaring, then integrating, and finally taking the square root of the adjoint
system's impulse response.

3.9.2 Applications

From any linear system, an adjoint system can be constructed by the following stcps
[Besncr and Shinar, 1979; Pctcrson, 1961; Zarchan, 1979(a)]:

1. Substitute tf - t for t in the arguments of all variable coefficients, that is,

gains.
2. Reverse all signal flow, redefining branch points as summing junctions and
vice versa.
3. The input to the adjoint system is a unit i~npulse6(t), whose application point
corresponds to the output of interest in the original system.
Sec. 3.9 AdJolnt Method 10g

Using the systcnl adjoint together with the outputs described previously, it
is possible to plot llMS miss at interception versus range a t the start o f hotning for
each computer run. Because the RMS miss caused by each of the input quantities
can likewise be obtained, it is also possible to isolate which factors have the greatest
influence on RMS miss. Using the adjoint system technique is therefore much less
time consuming than using Monte Carlo techniques and applying noise generators
to the r c g ~ ~ l analog
ar circuit. By going to acceleration adjoints, one can also study
the RMS lateral acceleration requirements for the missile. A balanced design can
then be achieved by comparing miss and acceleration statistics. It is easily seen that
the adjoint technique is well suited to the problem of statistical atlalysis and opti-
mization of linear time-varying systems. Using this technique, quick estimates of
the required gains, natural frequencies and damping, acceleration limits, and ailow-
able radomc tolerances can be obtained for several initial geometry and other input
conditions. As a preliminary design tool, the method of adjoints can significantly
lower the amount of work involved in the ensuing analysis of a refined nonlinear
system model [Peterson, 19611.
Example 3-3. The adjoint solution resulting from only one simulation
supplies a tremendous amount of information concerning system performance and
behavior as shown in this esa~llplefrom Zarchan [1979(a)]. What has been presented
can now be used to study thc homing loop shown in Figures 2-15a(iii) and 2-15b
of Examplc 2-2. In the deterministic input, the homing loop has a step target ma-
neuver xvhich has been converted to an impulsive input through integration. The
output to be considered is the miss distance y ~ ( t f due
) to the step target maneuver.
Figure 3 - 1 3 shows an adjoint model of the homing guidance loop of Figures 2-
13a(ii) and 2-15b, constructed according to the rules laid down previously. The
idea is to apply an in~pulseto the adjoint system at the location X4, corresponding
to xvhich the output ofinterest in the original system is denoted by y,. In the actual
simulation, however, an initial condition of unity is specified at X4 as opposed to
a unit impulse o n the derivative. In the process of constructing the adjoint model,
the three inputs o f the original system, target maneuver, glint noise, and fading
noise, all become outputs. That is, the outputs in the adjoint system are now miss
sensitivities due to target maneuver (y=(tf) for deterministic, y.ar,(tf) for stochastic),
miss sensitivity due to glint noise y,, and miss sensitivity due to fading noise yf(tf).
Stochastic inputs. Because there is no dependence of the sensitivity coef-
ficients of the adjoint system on the spectral density levels of the error sources,
changes in the latter do not necessitate additional simulation runs. The total RMS
miss distance, [E(yz(tf))]1'2 applying the principle of superposition, is given by
uy,(tf) = {u;,(tf) I Tgt Mvr + u:,(tf) I Glint + uf,(tf) I RIN
+ u;,(tf) I Range Dep.)Ii2
 yT(Q Step Target Maneuve~
Miss Distance Sensitivity
4

GLINT NOISE

4r ('t)
FAD. NOISE

=m

M = 11s 1 I
(1)
~2
AT,
2 q1( I f )
+ FAD. NOISE 1' I
+
9,( 1 0
GLINT NOISE I'
1

= -,/+ ~ E) IIY($)I
=~ ~ Y L ? + ~ + YI: (141

ADJOINT TIME (wcl

(8)

ADJOINT TlME l u )
(C)

Figure 3-12 (a) Adjoint Model ofLinear Homing Loop (b) RMS Miss Distance Error Budgct
Is Automatically Generated hy Adjoint Method (c) Adjoint IJrovides information on Perfor-
mance Sensitivity l>ue to Target Mat~cuver(From /Zarchan, 197Y(a)l. Q 1979 AIAA; and
/Zarrhat~,19881 ulirh prJnnissiot#.jam ACARDJ
 Sec. 3.10 Statistical Linearization 111

Figurc 3-12b plots the individual RMS contributions to miss distance together with
the total RMS miss distancc as functions of adjoint time. Hence, adjoint time implies
cithcr timc of flight or time to go at which disturbances occur. The figure shows
that the biggest contributor to miss distancc in this homing guidance loop is glint
noise.

Deterministic inputs. It is, howcvcr, neither a difficult nor expensive

task to compute othcr disturbance sensitivities as well. For example, thc miss dis-
tance scnsitivity due to a step in target acceleration y T(tf) was also calculated and
plotted against timc in Figure 3-12c, which suggests an optimal time of 0.6 sec for
the targct to maneuver in ordcr to rnaximizc miss distance before intercept. The
figure also indicates that miss distance will bc small if the target maneuvcrs too
soon, that is, if the adjoint timc is too large. As the adjoint time approaches infinity,
y T(tf) will always approach zero if the guidance system is well designed. The actual
adjoint timc required for the miss-distance scnsitivity curve to settle down is a
function of the overall guidance system time constant.

3.10 STATISTlCAL LINEARIZATION

When it is desired to treat nonlinearities in a stochastic guidance system, that is,

acceleration saturation, Monte Carlo techniques must be employed to compute
mean-square miss distance. The problem lies with the large number of trials that
must be run to achieve even moderate results. Most often, system nonlinearities are
dealt with through the construction of a linear model. Using suitable conditions
(for example, assuming the actual trajectory of the vehicle is close to its nominal
trajectory), a nonlinear function can be expanded in a Taylor series about some
operating point (nominal state vector) of the nominal trajectory and only the first-
order or linear terms kept. This approximates a nonlinear function for small per-
turbations about the operating point and can be used to obtain small signal lin-
earization. When an input is no longer accurately represented by a particular lin-
earization, the input is relinearized about a new operating point. The entire trajectory
can be segmented so that the small linearization approximation is valid over each
segment to reduce the analysis errors. The perturbations of the system states around
the nominal values can be studied using the covariance method. If changes in the
variable N G C loop parameters are very slow in comparison with the rate of the
associated processes, then the errors introduced by treating the time-dependent coef-
ficients in the linearized equation as constants will be correspondingly small. More-
over, significant analysis errors are not introduced by the process of linearizing the
N G C loop equations if: (1) the quantity in question is deterministic; or (2) if the 3u
value of the random signal at the input to each of the elements does not exceed the
112 Modem Multiuarlable Control Analysis Chap. 3

linear region of the element; or (3) the linearized function is differentiated. An even
more subtle restriction is posed by the fact that the linearization procedure involves
the system state vector itself. Thus, any results obtained will require a lot of com-
putation. These types of restrictions therefore lead to Monte Carlo approaches.
However, discontinuities in the system (for example, jamming and sudden target
.
maneuver in interce~t" guidance) such as a limiter and two-level switches restrict
these techniques and render linearization in the ordinary sense impossible [Gelb and
Warren, 19731.
When Monte Carlo techniques are required in the linearization procedure, or
when the conditions for ordinary linearization are lacking, statistical linearization
may be used. A statistical linearization that approximates a nonlinear operation, but
depends on some properties of the input signal, is often referred to as a quasi-
linearization. This technique can produce different linear approximations to the same
nonlinear function applied to different input signal forms. Quasi-linear approxi-
mation, unlike linear approximation, can be used for any range of signal magnitudes,
and is dependent on the input signal amplitude [Gelb and Vander Velde, 19681.
What has emerged as an immensely useful tool for the analysis of nonlinear systems
having random inputs is the method of statistical linearization. When statistical
linearization is used to analyze nonlinear systems with random inputs, the nonlinear
element is replaced by an equivalent gain which depends on the form of the input
signal. A method for determining the equivalent gain was developed by Booton
[I9531 and Gelb (19741. Consider an approximation of the nonlinear function f(s)
by a linear function, in the sense suggested by Figure 3-13, using statistical lin-
earization. T h e input x in the nonlinear system can be decomposed into a mean
component m plus a zero-mean illdependent random process I., giving x = PI + r.
For this systcm, it is desired to replace the nonlinear element by an equivalent gain

Figure 3-13 Statistical Linearizatiori

Approxinlation (Frorn /Grlh, 1Y80/ufirlr
pcrrrriuiorl ,fnorn Tltc Arrillyti( Sricriic~
Corp. )
K,,. The error signal e(t) is defined as the difference bctwcen y = f ( x ) and the
equivalent gain output, and has a mean-square value defined by

Using standard calculus, the minimum value of E[e2] can be found by differentiating
this quantity with respect to K,, and setting the derivative equal to zero. When this
is done, the result is

It is assumed that the signal r(t) is a zero-mean Gaussian random process whose
probability density function is p(r) = e-'2'('"2) /(6 u) where u is the RMS value
of r(t). The equivalent gains can therefore be written as

K,, = d3
1
dr, K, =
1 ,.f(,,, + r)e-r21(zo2) dr
-7 utn d 2 7 u~

Now, when it is known that the signal x itself is a zero-mean random Gaussian
process, m is zero, that is, x = r and the equivalent gain reduces to

In Gelb and Vander Velde [I9681 input-sensitive gains of the preceding type which
approximate the transfer characteristics of the nonlinearity are called random input
describing functions. These functions are tabulated for several important nonlin-
earities.

Example 3-4. This example, following the work of Zarchan [1979(a)] and
Example 2-2, centers around the limiter shown in Figure 3-14a. The describing
function given by Equation (3-43) becomes

xe - ~ 2 / ( 2 ~ 3
dx + -* 1 lim
J-lim x2e-x21(2u:) dx
(3-44)

+
lim
Lim
m

xe -s1(2u:) dx
 Modem Multlvariable Control Analysls Chap. 3

LINEAR (INFINITE LIMIT)

PERFORMANCE

0 lb h ;O do 50 60
MISSILE ACCELERATION LIMIT (g'sl
(C)

Figure 3-14 (a) Input-Output Characteristics of a Limiter (b) Randoni Input Describing
Function Approximation to Limiter (c) Acceleration Limit Study Utilizing CADET Approach
(d) SLAM Model of Nonlinear Homing Loop (e) Describing Functions for Various Accel-
eration Limits vs. Forward Time (0 Acceleration Limit Study Utilizing SLAM Approach (g)
SLAM Provides Information on Performance Sensitivity Due t o Target Maneuver (From [ Z a r -
than, 1979fa)). 0 1979 AIAA; and /Zarchan, 19881 u~irhprnnirsion.fiom ACARD)
 REVERSED GAIN FROM CADET
PORTION OF PROORAM

RMS = FAD. NOISE

A ~ Y

FORWARD TIME lkal MISSILE ACCELERATION LIMIT Ig'sl

(E)

ADJOINT TIME lwcl

('3
 116 Modem Multluarhble Control Analysis Chap. 3

which can be evaluated to give

lim
1 -x2/(20f) dx

Finally, rewriting this last equation in terms of the probability integral yields as the
describing function -.

Abramowitz and Stegun [I9641 give the following approximation to the preceding
integral, which can also be found by table lookup, that is accurate to five decimal
places
K,, = 1 - (21fi)e-""'~'(~":) (0.43618360 - 0. 1201676w2 + 0.937298w3)
(3-47)
where

Figure 3-14b plots the describing function for the limiter against values of lim/u,,
the ratio of the limit to the RMS value ofthe input signal. As expected, the describing
function is determined by these two values only.

3.10.1 Techniques and Tools for Statistical Linearization

Recent techniques involving statistical linearization of nonlinear system elements

with covariance analysis allow for the direct statistical analysis of nonlinear systems
and have been used on nonlinear missile guidance systems [Pricc and Warren, 19731.
An important tool for analyzing and evaluating the statistical behavior of nonlinear
stochastic systems is an approximate computer-implemented technique known as
the covariance analysis describing function technique (CADET). It involvcs the
direct statistical linearization of nonlinear systems, combining in the process clc-
ments of covariance analysis with those of random input describing function analysis
[Booton, 1953; Gelb and Vandcr Velde, 19681 to yield statistical pcrformancc pro-
jections in one cornputcr run. Thc dcrivation of the describing functions makcs usc
of a Gaussian assumption, which may at first glance seem unduly restrictive. How-
ever, because lincar elements outnunlbcr their nonlinear countcrparts in the majority
of dynamical systems, this turns out not to be the case. Morcover, nonlinear outputs
that are not Gaussian in nature are easily converted to nearly Gaussian inputs through
the use of low-pass filtering. What has been shown is that the large nurnbcr of
Monte Carlo runs can be replaced by one computer run with this ncw method, and
that the mean-square miss distance can be computed about as accurately. For 111any
types of nonlinear systems the CADET method [Gelb and warren, 19731 can often
be used as a less expensive alternative to the Monte Carlo approach in order to
obtain approximate performance projections. CADET has proved itself to be a useful
and efficient tool in the preliminary evaluation of nonlinear missile guidance system
performance. T o apply CADET to guidance systems, the following principal steps
must be implemented.

1. Substitute the appropriate random input describing function gain for each non-
linear element in the original system, assuming a Gaussian probability density
function for the input to the nonlinearity.
2. With the linear system model that results from the preceding substitution, use
conventional covariance analysis techniques (Section 3.8) to propagate the sta-
tistics of the system state vector. Note that the describing function gains are
themselves functions of these statistics.
3. Use the elements of the system covariance matrix to calculate the mean-square
output at t,, for example, mean-square miss distance at the intercept time.

Example 3-5. This example follows the work of Zarchan [1979(a)] and
Example 2-2. It illustrates how CADET can be applied to the system of Figure 2-
lja(ii) and 2-15b when the latter is operating in the nonlinear mode with saturation
effects. Following the previous discussion, the first step is to replace the acceleration
saturation nonlinearity by a random input describing function Kl,,. The linearized
system equation is then given by
118 Modem Multluariable Control Analysls Chap. 3

At this point, P(t) is found by integrating Equation (3-27), in which A is obtained

from the preceding linearized system equation and Q is still given by Equation (3-
31). The previously derived describing function gain for the limiter is a function of
the statistics of the unlimited commanded acceleration u, and the limit level nli,,
and can be computed from Equation (3-47). T o compute the RMS level of input
signal to the nonlinearity u:,, u, is first expressed as a function of the states. The
resulting mean-square value can be written as 02, = (AV,)'P(5, 5). Example 2-2
provides the input values that were used to perform C A D E T analysis of the homing
guidance loop. As in the case of the previous Monte Carlo analysis, the parameter
that was selected for the simulation runs was the missile acceleration limit MI,,,.
Figure 3-14c displays the results of this study, which were generated from six
C A D E T runs. This can be compared with the 200 runs used to generate the Monte
Carlo results, which are superimposed on the results of this study in Figure 3-14c.
T h e results shown in the figure point to the high degree of accuracy that can be
obtained using CADET. A study undertaken by Price and Warren [I9731 showed
that CADET was capable of producing results comparable in accuracy to those
obtained by Monte Carlo analysis involving several hundred simulation runs.

3.10.2 Statistical Linearization with A4joint Method

Statistical linearization has also been used in connection with adjoint techniques to
produce successful results. The combination of the two methods allows for the
assessment of primary factors in the overall measure of performance as well as the
ability to cvaluatc the stability of the guidance system. SLAM [Zarchan, 1979(a)]
in particular, is one of the approaches that have combined statistical linearization
with an adjoint method, and is another example of an approximate, computerized
technique that is available for the complete statistical analysis of nonlinear noise-
driven systems. It basically combines CADET with an adjoint tcchnique, the result
of which is capable of generating accurate statistical performance projections and
producing an approximate error budget that quantifies the influence of each dis-
trubance on the total system performance. In addition, SLAM has been successfully
applied to preliminary analyses of guidance system performance. The following
discussions on SLAM are based on [Zarchan, 19881. The principal steps to be fol-
lowed for using SLAM are:

1. This stcp is identical to stcp 1 of the C A D E T method.

2. This step is identical to stcp 2 of thc C A D E T mcthod.
3. Store thc resulting dcscribing function gains for cach nonlinearity as a function
of time.
Sec 3.10 Statistical Linearization llD

4. Convert the linearized system modcl to an adjoint model in the following way:
(a) substitute tr - t for t i n the arguments of all variable coefficients including
the described function gains; and (b) reverse signal flow, causing the original
systcm inputs to become adjoint system outputs.
5. Propagate the systcm in adjoint time.

Steps 4 and 5 together replace the linearized system model of the original system
by its adjoint modcl. As pointed out previously, the RMS miss distance derived
from SLAM is identical to that derived from CADET. However, SLAM can ad-
ditionally generate an approximate error budget that shows how each individual
error disturbance contributes to the total RMS miss distance. The approximate
nature of this error budget, which is valid only so long as the time history of the
gain K,,,,,of the describing function is valid, renders suspect any estimates of miss
distance for different error source input levels based on extrapolations. Such an error
budget is still useful inasmuch as it serves to put in relief those error sources that
have the greatest impact on the total RMS miss distance in the nonlinear system.
It is also much less expensive to generate than its counterpart derived from the use
of Montc Carlo or C A D E T techniques. These methods, in order to examine in-
dividual contributors to the total RMS miss distance, must rely on running simu-
lations with one error source a t a time, the results of which are combined in some
fashion to compute the total RAMSmiss distance. For nonlinear systems, this method
of combining individual error sources does not always produce the same total RMS
miss distance that would have resulted from running all error inputs at once.
In addition to the aforementioned error budget, another product that arises
from the use of statistical linearization methods are sensitivity functions. Although
they cannot be used to compute miss distance, being more qualitative in nature,
these functions relate system sensitivity to a step-target maneuver, and provide
insight into the relative stability of the system. Finally, another meritorious feature
of the SLAM concept lies in its self-checking nature. Should the adjoint and CADET
portions of the program fail to yield identical RMS miss distances, then it is certain
that the program is flawed in some manner, conceptually or otherwise. While it is
not possible for any program to totally eliminate the possibility of undetected errors,
the SLAM concept makes great strides toward this goal.

Example 3-6. Following Zarchan [1979(a)], the example - presented

. here
looks again at the nonlinear stochastic guidance system of Figures 2-15a(ii) and 2-
l j b to illustrate the usefulness of SLAM. Using the inputs of Example 2-2, the
time history of the describing function Kli, is first generated from the CADET
module of the program. Substituting tf - t for t as described earlier, the SLAM
program then generates K*,,,, the gain of the reversed describing function, which
120 Modem Multiuarlable Control Analysls Chap. 3

is entered into a linearized adjoint model of the original nonlinear system. This is
shown in Figure 3-14d. An approximate error budget for the nonlinear system is
then generated by running the adjoint module of the SLAM program. The parameter
selected in this study was, as in the case of the previous examples in this chapter,
the acceleration limit nli,. Figure 3-14e plots the describing function gains resulting
from the C A D E T analysis as a function of forward time for different values of nl,,.
It can be seen from the figure that, as long as no saturation occurs, the gains are
unity, and that these decrease with increased saturation. This is, of course, as the
theory predicted. Figure 3-14f plots the total RMS miss-distance error budget ob-
tained from SLAM as a function of the missile acceleration limit. As expected, the
total computed RMS miss distance corresponding to each of the acceleration limits
is identical to that obtained from running the CADET program alone in Example
3-5 (see Figure 3-14c). When the system is slightly saturated, that is, ittin, = 60 g,
glint noise can be seen to be the greatest contributor to the total RMS miss distance,
which can also be confirmed by Figure 3-12b. This is quickly superseded by random
target maneuver as saturation increases, or as nl,, decreases. Conversely, the con-
tributions from fading and glint noise slightly decrease. This is understood by re-
alizing that saturation acts to provide additional filtering.
The sensitivity function due to a step-target maneuver is also plotted in Figure
3-149 as a function of adjoint time for various values of titi,,,. These functions
represent mathematically the impulse response of the quasi-linearized system, but
cannot, as mentioned before, be used to compute the miss distance due to step-
target maneuver. The sensitivity curve of Figure 3-14g corresponding to t~l,,,,= 5 ,
that is, the linear casc, first peaks then rapidly decreases to an asyn~ptoticvalue of
zero. This situation, which is also depicted in Figure 3-12c, would be found to
occur in a well-designed missile guidance system en~ployingI'NG. I n this casc. a
target maneuver initiated a t a time to go of not less than ten guidance time constants
should have no bearing 011 the total miss distance. Figure 3-14g demonstrates that
the miss-distance sensitivity asymptotically approaches values other than zero as
soon as an acceleration limit is introduced. Such a situation is typical of PNG systems
whose effective navigation ratio is not sufficiently large. In the case of acceleration
limits smaller than those indicated in the figure, there would be a monotonic increase
in the sensitivity function, representing a system that is stable yet incapable of guid-
ing effectively on maneuvering targets. Such information, while not of a purely
quantitative nature, noncthclcss provides the guidance system designer with insight
into thc details of system behavior.

3.10.3 Applications

It has been shown [Zarchan, 1979(a)]that the preceding C A D E T and SLAM tncth-
ods produce the same degree of accuracy demonstrated in Monte Carlo methods
applied to missile guidance system evaluation. In gcncral, though, thc missile ac-
 Five to Seven Times the Acceleration Capability of the Tar et
8
Is Needed by the Missile in Order to Intercept the Target sing PNG.
Two to Four Times the Acceleration Ca ability of the Tar et Is Needed
.F
b the Missile in Order to Intercept the arget Using APr$or Advanced
duidance Law.

Linear Analysis

I I
10
I
20 30
I
40
I
50
I I
60
I
70
Missile Acceleration Limit (g's)
Figure 3-15 Missile Acceleration for Target Intercept: Nonlinear System Analysis

celeration limit greatly influences the RMS miss distance. Figure 3-15 shows that,
for 7-g maneuvering targets an acceleration capability five to seven times greater
than that of the target is required by the missile to be able to intercept the target
close to the accepted level if PNG law is used. However, the use of augmented
proportional navigation (APN) guidance or modern guidance laws requires the mis-
sile to have an acceleration capability two to four times that of the target to be able
to intercept the target. For further details, see Chapters 6 and 8.

3.11 QUALITATIVE COMPARISON

The qualitative comparison presented in this section is based on material presented

in Zarchan [1988]. The selection of a particular computerized method for performing
statistical analysis is not always a straightforward matter. Depending on the system
being analyzed and the type of information required, there are occasions that call
122 Modem Mu(tiuariab1e Control Analysis Chap. 3

for the use of more than simply one method to gain a complete system understand-
ing. Because it requires basically a random number generator and a postprocessing
routine, in addition to a simulation program for the system equations, the Monte
Carlo method is the most general and most easily applied o f these techniques. In-
spection of a block diagram of the system is often easily translated into the system
equations. When it is desired to use the adjoint technique, the modified diagram
can be obtained from the original block diagram of the system, and these are also
easily translated into system equations. For this reason, the adjoint technique is
almost as easy to utilize as the Monte Carlo method. The same is not true of co-
variance analysis, which requires the system equations to first be expressed in state-
space form. Covariance analysis is therefore more difficult to implement, and sys-
tems composed of both analog and digital sections must be handled very carefully.
Problems that are basically linear except for the inclusion of specific nonlinearities
such as saturations or dead zone lend themselves well to analysis by application of
the CADET and SLAM techniques, both of which are more difficult than the Monte
Carlo method t o utilize yet no more so than covariance analysis.
Besides difficulty of implementation, another way in which the methods differ
from one another is their C P U usage, or computer running time. The greatcr the
number of differential equations needed to describe the system and the number of
computer runs required to perform a statistical analysis, the higher is the cost of
doing the analysis. The Monte Carlo method requires many more computer runs
than any of the other methods to obtain accurate results; whereas, in the casc of
linear systems, the adjoint and covariance methods only require one run because
they are both exact methods. For an 11-state system, n differential cquations must
be integrated for the adjoint technique compared to ti' differential equations for a
covariance method. Thcrc arc no exact methods of statistical analysis for nonlinear
system analysis. The accuracy obtained by using CADET and SLAM is close to
that obtained from several hundred Monte Carlo runs [Gelb and Warren, 1973; Price
and Warren, 1973; Zarchan, 1979(a)]. For an 11-stable system, 17 differential equations
must be integrated with CADET, while ,I' + rr cquations must be integrated with
SLAM. A comparison of the different statistical analysis techniques can therefore
be made on the basis of cost, which is defined hcre as

cost A number of equations x number of runs (3-48)

Figurcs 3-16a and 3-16b comparc the costs of using these methods. The): s l ~ o \ ~ ~
that, in spite of the usually large number of computer runs required, thc Montc
Carlo mcthod can be chcapcr to i~nplcmcntthan covariance analysis, CADET. or
SLAM. In the previous discussions of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of thc
various computerized statistical analysis mcthods, it has been dcmonstratcd for thc
case of linear systems that the mcthods of adjoints and covariance analysis yield
exact pcrformancc projections. In the casc of nonlinear system analysis, the Montc
Carlo mcthod is easily rivalcd by the CADET and SLAM techniques.
 COS
NUMBER OF RUNS

COVARIANCE
ANALYSIS
100
10 100 1000
NUMBER OF STATES
a) coat Cmparlmn lor Linear Syatema

COST

NUMBER OF STATES

b) Comt C-11- lor Nonlinear Syatema

Figure 3-16 (a) Cost Comparison for Linear Systems (b) Cost Comparison for
Nonlinear Systems (From [Zarchat~,19881 with permission from ACARD)
 124 Modem Muitiuarhble Control AnalysIs Chap. 3

3.12 OTHER PERFORMANCE ANALYSES

Stochastic disturbances that greatly affect NGC performance must be identified and
accounted for in the NGC system synthesis. The turbulence and gust velocities
produce incremental aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the vehicle. The
turbulence and gust disturbances are applied to the aerodynamic terms in the equa-
tions of motion. but not to the inertial or acceleration terms. Similarly. ,, their effects
- ..
are included for the aerodynamic sensors but not for the inertial sensors. For ex-
ample, a 30-ftlsec horizontal crosswind hitting a flight vehicle with a 300-ftlsec
forward speed will create a 5.7-deg aerodynamic sideslip while the inertial sideslip
still remains zero. Turbulence and gust are responsible for random variations in
airspeed VtOt,r,in the angle of attack a, and in the sideslip angle P. The model
accounts for turbulence and gust through gust components of a, P, Vt,,,l as a =
ai + a,, Q = Q i + f&, and Vt,,,l = V i+ V,, respectively, where If,, ol,, and p,
are the increments of VtOtal, a, and p, respectively, due to the turbulence and gust.
The dynamic model includes three channels of independently generated Dryden or
von Karman model turbulence.
Dynamic loads due to atmospheric turbulence, discrete gusts, and discrete
control inputs must be calculated in order to analyze vehicle's flexibility effects. In
the dynamic load analysis, the following data are needed: (1) externally produced
structural data composed of mode shapes, lumped masses, generalized masses, and
generalized stiffness; (2) vehicle geometry; (3) control law; and (4) information of
flight condition, for example, velocity, altitude, Mach number, and mass distri-
bution (center-of-gravity location). The maximum expected load varies as a function
of the atmospheric turbulencc environment and the maneuver level of the vehicle.
It is the sum of the steady-state load and the predicted peak incremental value. Results
of a dynamic load analysis are rcpresentkd in terms of statistical quantities (for
example, RMS responses), PSD response, time response of the dynamic loads (for
instance, torsion, bending moment, acceleration, and both deflection and rate con-
trol surface activity), and singular value response.
Recall that spectral (PSD) analysis is used to obtain vehicle responses to random
disturbances. ~ h k r e s u l t of
s PSD analysis can then be used to estimate fatigue damage
rates, maximum expected loads, stability information, and crew compartment ac-
celeration environmcnts. In gcncral, vehicle response is constraincd by aerodynamic
and structural restrictions. Control surfacc activity is limited by actuator and hinge
momcnts. As an cxamplc, the closed-loop system RMS control surface rate must
be significantly below lld2 times the rate limit, sincc the boundary value (maxi-
mum and minimum valuc) is about ~ times the RMS valuc. Generalized harmonic
analysis is an cxtcnsion of thc spectral analysis in obtaining a more comprehensivc
vehicle's dynamic response to atmospheric turbulence. In generalized harmonic anal-
ysis, the theoretical frequency response functions are derived from the nonlincar
Sec. 3.12 Other Performance Analyses 125

flexible dynamic equations of motion. Letting the gust input be a unit impulse and
taking the Fourier transform of the flexible dynamic equations of motion yield the
frequency response equations. The response equations are then solved algebraically
to obtain complex motion frequency response functions. Summing the resulting
airload and inertial load responses allows the load and stress frequency responses to
be obtained. Consequently, the complex load and motion frequency responses are
computed.
 Modem Filtering
and Estimation
Techniques
As the caption of Figure 4-1 suggests, this chapter is concerned with modern filtering
and estimation techniques. As can be seen from the figure, the fundamental (purely
classical) aspects of filtering and estimation are covered extensively in Book 1 of
the series, which also includes discussions on signal reconstruction and observers.
Filtering and estimation techniques can be divided into two approaches, determin-
istic and stochastic, the latter of which is applied to systems with noisy inputs. The
deterministic approach leads to the design of the Luenberger observer, treated in
Book 1 of the series. Both deterministic and stochastic methods are related to the
classical elements of complementary filtering, also covered in Book 1 of the serics.
The bulk of the current chapter deals with optimal estimation techniques, which
make up Sections 4.1 to 4.5. These are stochastic methods including linear minimum
variance estimation, nonlinear filtering, prediction and smoothing, Kalman filtcr
analysis, and operational considerations. Finally, in Section 4.6, a combined com-
plementary1Kalman filter approach is presented to close the gap between the hcu-
ristic classical dcsign and the analytical modern estimator dcsign.
Many dynamic modeling and control applications require at some time during
operation estimates ofunknown variables in the equations and/or state of the system.
Ultimately, the values of these quantities depend on measurements and the assumcd
model structure, and on statistics related to measurements, the model, and inputs
to the system. This section develops techniques designed to produce such estimates,
 Chap. 4 Modem Fllterlng and Btlmatlon Techniques

Filtering & Estimation

(Book 1)

Deterministic Stochastic

Luenberger Complementary Optimal Estimation

Observer Filtering (Kalman Filter)
( B o ~ k1) (Bopk 1) (Secs. $1-4.5)
+
Combined ComplementaryiKalman
Filter Approach to Estimator Desig
(Sec. 4.6)
4
Adaptive and Digital Applications Figure 4-1 Modern Filtering and Esti-
(Books 4 & 5 ) rnatlon Techniques

which can be applied in either a batch or a recursive mode. In a batch mode, the
estimate is determined after all of the measurements are recorded, whereas in a
recursive mode, an updated estimate is obtained after each measurement is recorded.
Recursive techniques take on special importance in the case of on-line applications
involving digital computers. Modeling of a time-varying dynamic system for which
there are uncertainties associated with inputs, outputs, or the system itself, is for-
mulated through state vectors. Modern estimation methods make use of known
relationships to compute the desired information from measured information, taking
into account measurement errors. the effects of disturbances and control actions on
the system, and prior knowledge of these variables for which the new information
is desired. Filters designed from modern estimation methods for noisy data reduce
the effects of drift with regard to the desired information. State estimates of a dy-
namic system are not confined solely to being estimates of the current state. In fact,
there are occasions where it is desirable to obtain an estimate of the state at a specified
future time. Such a problem arises in the application of intercept guidance. This and
other types of similar problems are known collectively as the prediction problem,
and estimation techniques can easily be modified to treat these. The smoothing
problem represents yet another extension of basic estimation techniques. It is desired
in this problem to determine the state at some previous time based on measurements
recorded up to the current time. Both the prediction and smoothing problems are
covered in subsequent sections.
Kalman filtering is a method for estimating the state variables of a dynamic
 128 Modem Nlterlng and Estimation Techniques Chap. 4

system recursively from noise-contaminated measurements. The filter determines

the system's present state by optimally combining theoretical estimates with mea-
surement noise characteristics, based on a knowledge of the system model. In con-
trast to methods that -process measured data simultaneously and require substantial
data-storage capability, such as least-squares methods, the Kalman filter processes
.
measurements sesuentiallv and thus reauires much less data to be stored. Each new
measurement results in a new state estimate. In addition to the estimate itself, a
covariance matrix of estimation errors representing uncertainties in the estimate is
also generated by the Kalman filter. For linear systems, the actual, measured data
are not required to generate the covariance matrix, so that the latter can be calculated
in advance based o n different models or measurement arrangements. Consequently,
estimation errors are known before the dynamic system is actually implemented,
allowing a determination to be made of the effect of additional state variables on
estimation accuracy. This in turn permits a prediction of improvements in accuracy
that can be achieved by using additional sensors. The Apollo space program is
generally accepted as being the first known application of the Kalman filter. Since
then, Kalman filtering has proved eminently useful in such applications as the de-
- -

termination of spacecraft orbits, satellite tracking and navigation, digital image pro-
cessing, economic forecasting, industrial processes, and nuclear power-plant in-
strumentations. Some particular applications of the use of Kalman filter theory
include ascent guidance at Cape Kennedy and orbital determinations for Voyager
1 and Voyager 2. In this last problem, spacecraft-based optical observations were
combined with earth-based radiometric observations to accurately determine the
orbit during the Jupiter encounter approach phase. In the case of nuclear powcr-
plant instrumentation, on-line instrument failures are detected and fault-tolerant
computer control systems are designed, each by making use of Kalman filter theory
[Baheti, 19871.
As powerful and useful as Kalman filter theory is in so many diverse areas of
application, it still cannot circumvent unacceptable results arising from poor system
modeling and improper conditioning of the covariance equations. Modeling is pri-
marily concerned with the definition of state variables, selection of the coordinate
system to be used, the method of linearization, and the effects of bias, disturbance,
and modeling errors. Even in the same area of application, the dynamic model
developed for a particular problem may no longer be suitable if changes or new
restrictions are introduced into the problem. The following sections provide a revicw
of approaches and advances in Kalman filtering. The reader who is also intcrcsted
in a chronological account of the development of this mathematical filtering thcory
and its widespread engineering acceptance should consult Schmidt [I9811

4.1 LINEAR MINIMUM V A M C E ESTIMATION: W M A I Y FILTER

The Kalman filter technique is summarized in this section and is shown in Figure
4-2.
 Sec. 4.1 Linear Minimum Variance Estimation: Kalman Filter

a) Syucm Model and Discrete Kalrnan Filter

w(t.1)

i(k,+

b) Linear Continuas Kalrnan Filter

, Optimal Stale Gnimalion

Figure 4-2 (a) System Model and Discrete Kalman Filter (b) Linear Continuous Kalman
Filter

4.1.1 Discrete Kalman Nlter

Table 4-1 defines the well-known Kalman filter [Kalman, 19601. A historical treat-
ment of this subject is documented [Gelb, 19741. The Kalman filter is the optimal
state estimator that provides a systematic scheme for computing the estimator gain
matrix Kk.A flow chart is drawn in Figure 4-2a. Table 4-2 defines the multiple-
rate Kalman filter.

4.1.2 Continuous Kalman Nlter

In Gelb [I9741 and numerous other places the Kalman filter is derived for a linear
system with a continuous measurement equation given in Equations (3) of Table
2-1 by performing a limiting process involving Atk = tk+, - tk on the discrete
filter solution. The result is a natural generalization of the discrete case and only the
result will be presented here [Powers, 19781. I

1. Given the state equations (3) of Table 2-1 and the initial values E[x(to)]= 20
-'
and E[(x(to)- io)(x(to)- 2 0 ) ~=] Po. The matrix R ( t )must exist at each t.
2. Integrate the matrix differential equation using P(to) = Po as follows
130 Modem Nltering and Estfmation Techniques Chap. 4

TABLE 4-1 DISCRETE KALMAN FILTER STEP-BY-STEPPROCEDURE

Step I : Problem Formulation

Given Eq. (5) of Table 2-1, no measurement is made at time to, and k(0)' is used to
represent the estimate of x at to with known covariance
P: = E[x(O) - i(0)') (x(0) - k ( ~ ) + ) ~ ]
(1)
Application of the exbectation operator to Eq. (1) produces an apriori estimate of x(1)
which is denoted by %(I)'. The associated covariance P; is obtained in a similar manner.
The notation [ ](k) - represents the value of [ ] at 1, before the measurement z(k) is
performed, while I ](k) + represents the value of [ ] at t, after the measurement. The latter is
called the apmeriori estimate. The equations for fr(k)+ and P: are functions of %(k)-PI, and..
z(k), and represent the linear unbiased minimum variance (LUMV) estimate of i(k)'. In
this recursive approach, each time a new measurement is performed, immedialely
afterwards an updated estimate of x is obtained.
Step 2: Time Update
i
Since E[w(k-l)]=O, then given %+(k-I),and fj , the expectation operation on Eq. (Sa) of
k-1
Table 2- 1 gives
i(k)- = Q(k-1) 8(k-1)' + Y(k-1) u(k-I) (2)
Based on the definition.
P; = E{[x(k) - i(k).] [x(k) - i(k)-lT)
(3)
The following equafon is derived:
Pi = @(k-l)~;., QT(k-1) + N(k-1) Q,., liT(k-I) (4)
Step 3: Meastrrenrerlr Update
Given $,(k)- and P: ,calculate

P; = [I - K, H(k)]PL (6)
i(kf = %(k)-+ K,[z(k) - H(k) k(ky] (7)
Step 4:
If measurements are exhausted, stop; otherwise, set k=k+l and return to step 2.
- - -

It should be noted that in many cases, Eq. (6) is replaced- by -

P; = [I - K, H(k)] P i [I - K, ~ ( k ) ] '+ K, R, K: (8)
because of its superior numerical properties. That is, Eq. (6) may result in bad subtraction,
whereas Eq. (8) involves the sum of two positive definite matrices (which will keep P:
positive definite).
Sec 4.1 Linear MInlmwn Varknce Estlmatlom Kalman Fflter Dl

TABLE 4-2 MULTIPLE-RATE MLMAN rlLTER

S~epI : Problem Formulation

Given Eq.(5) of Table 2-1,the problem formulation is the same as that in step 1 of Table
4-1. Let the measurement vector be defined as
zf = fast measurement available every Tf sec.
= q = slow measurement available every T sec.
L J

and zfis available 1times as often as q, i.e.. T, = Tf. Time is defined by the index (k, i),
where k refers to the basic time period T, and i refers to the short time period Tf. At time
index (k, 0) both q and z, are available giving the multi-rate measurement equation.

[-I'[=. Hp (k, 0) + v, (k, 0)

& - H,x (k, 0) t v, (k, 0)
I
v, (k,0) N(0, r,)
v, (k, 0) N(0, r,)
-
-
At the remainder of the time instants only q is available and the corresponding measurement
equation is

Step 2: Time Updare

.=[a\
=[
H?(k,i)tv,(k,i)
0
i = 1 , 2 , ..., 11-1
vf (k, i) N(0, rf) -
Repeat for i = 0, 1, 2, ..., 1-1.
i(k, i+l)' = @(k, i) k(k, i) + Y(k, i) u(k, i)

Step 3: Measurement Update

For i = 0. P(k, 0)' = k(k, 0)-+ Kf[zAk, U) - H&(k, O).] + &[q(k, 0) - H,k(k, O r ]
For i = 1, 2, . -1, S(k, i)' = i(k, i)' + K,[z&k, i) - ~ $ ( k ,i)']
Step 4:
If the measurements are exhausted, stop; otherwise, set k = k + l and return to step 2.

The above results can also be applied to multiple sampling rates. Following [Lewis,
19861, let the continuous system be discretized using a period T = Ti, where Tf is much less
than the data sampling period T,,where T, = k Tt. No data arrive between kT,, so during
these intervals only the time update (step 2) should be performed. For this update, use the
system dynamics discretized with period TI. When data are received, at times kT,, the
measurement update portion (step 3 but treat K, = 0) should be performed. For this update,
the measurement noise covariance R' = R,T, is used.

and define rhe Kalman gain

~ ( t =) ~ ( t ) ~ ( t ) ~ ~ - l ( t ) (4- 1 b)
The state estimate is defined by integrating
i ( t ) = A(t)?(t) + B ( t ) u ( t )+ K ( t ) [ r ( t )- H ( t ) i ( t ) ] , $(to) = i o (4-lc)
132 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

The estimation is corrected by the residual term x - H2 through K. Figure 4-2b

presents the linear continuous Kalman filter. The Bu(t) term includes all the known
inputs to the model dynamics so that the filter can use this information to improve
its estimate. If E [ w ( t ) v ( ~ ) ~=] S(t)8(t - T) is a white-noise process, then only
Equation (4-lb) is modified to give
'
K(t) = [ p ( ~ ) H ( t+) ~N(t)S(t)]R- (t) (4- 1d)
In many cases the filter solution is studied in two phases: the transient phase and
the steady-state phase, with the steady-state characteristics defined by the solution
as t approaches infinity. In classical linear differential equation terminology, these
correspond exactly to the homogeneous (steady-state) and particular (transient) so-
lutions. There exists a steady-state Kalman filter gain which is the most useful for
control problem applications. Supposing a t this point that the matrices A, B, N, H,
Q, R, and S in Equations (4-1) are all constants, it can be shown that the limit of
the covariance matrix P(t) as t approaches infinity, exists, for example, P,, and
furthermore that it is defined by the algebraic Riccati equation

This last equation is nothing more than Equation (4-la) with P = 0. The resultant
Kalman filter gain is the constant matrix

and thus the steady-state estimate by Equation (4-lc) is

Given that these arc the statc equations o i thc stcady-state Kalnlan estimator, thc
stability of this last differential cquation is strictly a function of the matrix A -
K,H. A great deal of information about the bchavior of Equation (4-4) can be
obtaincd by analyzing the roots of the characteristic cquation corresponding to det[sl
- (A - K,H)] = 0. A sufficient condition for the steady-state filter estimate to
be asymptotically stable is that thc system is observable. Assuming Q 2 0 (positive
sernidcfinite) and R > 0 (positive definite'), the system is observable if and only if
H ~ i ... i ( A ~ ) " - ' H ~has
the 11 x r ~ pmatrix [ H T I A ~ i (AT)'HT ] a rank 11.

Example 4-1: First-order altitude rate Kalman filter. As in Book

1 of thc scrics, thc altitudc rate h can bc infcrrcd from two mcasurcmcnts, a bar-
omctric tncasurctncnt iln and an accclcromctcr mcasurcmcnt /;:. It is worth\vhilc
I;,
here to apply the stcady-statc Kal~nanfiltcr to thc samc problem. First, is trcntcd
as a stochastic input with known noisc charactcristic w(t), that is, ?(I) = 1 ) =
/;,(I) t u f ( t ) , whcrc ul(r) is a zero-mean whitc-noise process with variance q. Scc-
ondly, /IB is trcatcd as a nlcasurclncnt z = = 11 + v = x + v where v(r) is a
 zcro-mean white-noise proccss with variancc r , and r is a constant. With rcgard to
Equations (4-1). A([) = 0, B(r) = 0, N(r) = 1 , H(r) = 1, Q = q, and R = r.
Applying the steady-state Kalman filter produces the algebraic Riccati cquation
- ~ ' l+r q = 0 whose solution is P, = d :.i The stcady-state Kalman filter gain
is K I = d& and the estimate equation is h = I;:, + g& ( i l H - i). Comparing
i
this solution with the complementary filter solution of Book 1 of thc series, h =

;1 + -T1 ( I.l l , - jl), shows that T = VG. If T E 12, 61, then, physically, the h B ( t )
measurement is about two to six times noisier than thc I;:, measurement, with respect
to variance [Powers, 19781.

4.2 NONLINEAR FILTERING

The linear filtering problems of the previous sections are basically solved by a single
approach. In many applications, the system dynamics and the measurement models
are nonlinear. Nonlinear problems in general require more problem-oriented tcch-
niques, along with considerably more knowledge of stochastic process theory. For-
tunately, one of the most successful techniques for treating nonlinear problems
developed to date is a natural extension of the linear-oriented Kalman filter known
as the extended Kalman filter (EKF).

4.2.1 Extended Kalman Filter (Em)

The Kalman filter is a standard filter for state estimation in linear systems. For
systems with nonlinear dynamics, a natural extension is to linearize the system
around the current state estimate 2(t) and apply the Kalman filter to the resulting
linear, time-varying system. This is the EKF which has been described in detail in
Jazwinski [1970]. This filter has also been widely used for the combined (nonlinear)
problem of estimating th'e state and the parameters of a linear system. Discussions
of the latter application are presented in Book 4 of the series. The EKF is presented
in this section along with the procedure for treating the continuous dynamic model,
discrete measurement case. The continuous nonlinear system is described by Equa-
tion (1) of Table 2-1. The main idea is to use expansions of the nonlinear functions
f and h about the estimate 2 whenever linear forms are necessary in the development.
There is not a great deal of difference in the structures of the covariance and gain
computation equations for the Kalman filter and for the EKF, and these are sum-
marized as follows. The initial condition is also assumed to have a normal distri-
bution, E[x(to)] = 20, E[(x(to) - 20)(x(t0) - 20)T] = PO.
134 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

1. Define
A[i(t), t] = - H[?(t), t] = (4-5a)

2. Integrate the coupled (in general) differential equations

where
K[2(t), t] = p(t)HT[2(t), t ] ~ - ' ( t ) (4-5d)
The EKF yields very nearly optimal estimates if +e linearization is accurate. The
EKF involves the integration of n + [n(n + 1)/2] '(since P is symmetric) coupled
differential equations in the variables 2 and P with the initial conditions given by
Equations (4-5b and 4-5c). As mentioned previously, the idea behind the EKF is
that of linearizing the nonlinear equations about the current state estimate 2(t), a
technique which is termed relinearization. In utilizing such a procedure, the ap-
proximation remains linear because the estimated state is as often as not closer to
the actual state. The structure of the algorithm for the EKF is illustrated in Figure
4-3. Because of the linearization procedure, the EKF covariance (and hence the
gains) depends on the current state estimate and the measurement data. Conse-
quently, it is not possible to compute the EKF covariance and gain matrix as a
function of time off line as in the linear case of Section 4.1 since the state estimates
of the EKF are no longer optimal. O n the other hand, if an a priori nominal tra-
jectory, for example, x*(t) replaces 2(t) as the base trajectory in the expansion
procedure, then Equations (4-5a to 4-5d) will involve known functions of time
(for example, A[x*(t), t], H[x*(t), t ] , and so on) and the Kalman gain can be
computed a priori. However, this procedure has not met with the same success as
the EKF in actual applications. Note that the standard KF guarantees stability while
the EKF does not.

-
E~s.(4-k&d)
Calculation of
Eqs. (4-5a)
Initial Estimation Estimation Error Linearization of
Error Covariance -b Covariance p(t) and 4- Model About
P(t,) Kalman Gain K(t) State Estimate
State Variable Model A
of Nonlinear System K(t)
Measurement Data +Computation of State
Initial State State Estimate * +Variable
Variable Estimate Eq.(4-Sb) Estimates

Figure 4-3 Structure of an Extended Kalman Filter

Sec 4.2 Nonlinear Flltertng 135

TABLE 4-3 CONTINUOUS DYNAMICS, DISCRETE MEASUREMENTS: EXTENDED

KALMAN PILTER

Given Eqs. (2a&b) of Table 2-1, and E[x(to)]= 4, -

E[(x(to) $,) (~(1,) - to)T] = PO.
Step I: Defme

Step 2: Given a(!;), Pi, integrate forward to ti+,

8= qa(t),u(I), ti, = ~ i ( t11)P. + PA[$(^). 1
P 1+~Q(0. P(!,) = P(~;)
Set k = k+ 1and go to step 3.
Step 3: Given $(ti), Pi, z(k), deternine
&ti) -
= $(ti) + K,{z(k) h[!!(t;), kl)
P: = [I - KrHk[%(t;)]]P;
where = Pi ~:[ft(ti)l{Hk[a(ti)lPi H:[s(~~)]+ %I-'
Go to step 2.

Note that if to < I,, then the definitions %(t:) = ko, P; = Po are made, and step 2 is
implemented as the first step. If a measurement is given at to, i.e., I, = to, then the
definitions $(ti) = 9,. P; = Po are made and step 3 is implemented as the first step.

Several modified versions of the EKF have been proposed and implemented
to deal with nonlinearities in the model. Some of the more successful variations of
the EKF are represented by the second-order filter, the iterated EKF, and the J-
adaptive filter Uazwinski, 19701. The algorithms developed are capable of yielding
significant benefits only in certain applications and are not of a very general nature.
For this reason, the application of any of these algorithms must be carefully examined
and acccomvanied bv a substantial amount of simulation studies. The EKF filter
for the continuous-time nonlinear system with discrete-time nonlinear measure-
ments (see Equations (2a & b) of Table 2-1) is presented in Table 4-3, from which
the linear case of continuous dynamics, discrete measurements can be easily deduced.

4.2.2 Statistical Linearization Technique

A linear approximation is desired for a vector function f(x, t) of a vector random

variable x, having probability density function p(x). Following the statistical ap-
proximation technique, a statistically linearized filter is given in Table 4-4 in which
it should be observed that the structu2e is similar to the EKF in Table 4-3; however,
now K, and K h have replaced A and\ H k . The computational requirements of the
..
statistically linearized filter may be greater than for EKF derived by taking Taylor
A

series expansions of the nonlinearities because the expectations f , h[x(tk), k], and
so on, must be performed over the assumed Gaussian density for x. However, the
136 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

TABLE 4-4 CONTINUOUS DYNAMICS, DISCRETE MEASUREMENTS: STATISTICALLY

LINEARIZED FILTER

Given Eqs. (2aBrb) of Bble 2-1, and vx(to)] = kO, E[(x(to) - 9,) (~(t,)- 9,) T] = Po.
It is reasonable to approximate f(x,t) by the linear expression
f(x, t) m a(t) + x(t) (1)
where a(t) and K,(t) are a vector and a matrix to be determined. Defining the error
e f(x, I) - a(t) - %(I) x(t) (2)
it is desired to choose a(t) and K, such that the quantity
J = ~ [We] e ~ (3)
is minimized for some symmetric positive semi-definite matrix W. Substituting Eq. (2)
into Eq.(3)and setting the partial derivative of J with respect to the elements of a(t) and K,
to zero, gives
a({) = ?(XI - yk, K, = {[fxT],,, - ?kT} P-I
(4)
To derive approximate minimum variance filtering algorithms, Eq. (4) is substituted into
Eq. (1) yielding
-
f(x, 1) m kx) + &(x - 8). h[x(tk). k] h[k(tk). k] + I$,(k)[~(t,) 9(ti)l- (5)
This formulation necessitates computing f, hi, &, and Kh, each of which depends on the
probability density function for x, a quantity that is generally not readily available.
Consequently, an approximation is needed for p(x) that permits the above quantities to be
calculated. For this purpose, it is frequently assumed that x is Gaussian. Since the
probability density function for a Gaussian random variable is completely defined by its
mean k and its covariance matrix P, both of which are already computed in any filtering
algorithm, it is possible to compute all the averages in Eqs. (5). Assuming that the right
sides of Eqs. (5) are calculated by making the Gaussian approximation for x, the statistical
linearization for f and h can be used for the nonlinear filter. The step by step procedure of
the statistically linearized filter is summarized as follows:
Srep 1: Definitions
[fxT],,, ?, Et are expectations calculated assuming x -N($, P). k, k(ti) and [h xT(t;)],,, are
-
expectations calculated assuming ~ ( t k ) N [$(ti), pi].
Step 2: Given kcti), P;, integrate forward to ti+,
Et = REt(t), u(t), I], P = K$P + PC+ Q I ) , P(1,) = PO;)
&(I)= {[fxqC,,- ?kT} p-l(r)
-
Set k = k+l and no to step 3.
Step 3: Given a(&). Pi, a k ) , detlrmine
%(ti) -
= k(tk) + Kk { ~ ( k )h[k(tk), k]}
-
= [I $K,,(k)] PC
where Kk= Pi K L ( ~() q ( k ) Pi ~ l ( k+) RI,)-'

From [Gclb. 19801 with prrmission from The Analytic Scie~lccsCorp.

Sec. 4.2 Nonlinear Mitering W7

performance advantages offered by statistical linearization may make the additional

computation worthwhile. A detailed derivation can be found in Gelb [1974].

4.2.3 Multiple Model Estimation

A multiple model approach considered here is to assume two or more levels of

process noise. A filter is set up for each model and, based on their likelihood func-
tions, the probability for each model being correct is obtained [Bar-Shalom and
Luh, 19861. Let Ae ( e = 1, . . . , m) bc the event that model e is correct with prior
probabilities P{Ae} = pe. The likelihood function of measurements up to time k
under the assumption of model Ae is Le(k) = P ( z k 1 Ae) = n P [ v e ( i ) ]where
k

,=I
zk

= { z ( l )... z ( k ) }and, under the Gaussian assumption, the probability density func-
tion of the innovation from model e is

Using Bayesian rule, the a posteriori probability that model E is correct at time k
is

PIAe I z k } = P { A ~ } P { ( zAe}
~ P{A,}P{zk I A,} = L e ( k ) p e
j=l j= 1

(4-6)
It is assumed in Equation (4-6) that the same model has been in effect from the
initial time. However, this is obviously not true if the model changes at some time
during the interval [ I , k ] . In view of this, a "sliding-window" likelihood function
has to be used. It is now assumed that the model changes at time k - N, so that
one considers only the likelihood functions of the measurements from k - N + 1
to k. Each filter starts from the same initial condition at k - N . The likelihood
function corresponding to model e is then

Le(k - N , k) = P [ z ( k - N + I), . . . , ~ ( kI Ae,

) ~ ( -k N ) , . . . z ( l ) I
probability of model
and t at time k: P{Ae I z k }
 138 Modem N1terin.q and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

The state estimate is a weighted average of the model-conditioned estimates with

the preceding probabilities as weights:
2,

E{x(k)I zk} = E { x ( k ) 1 A,, z k } P { A j 1 z k ) (4-8)

j=1

A "fading memory" approach to the computation of probabilities in a multiple

model situation is now considered. The discounted (fading-memory) average norm
of innovations with discount factor 0 5 a-,5 1 ( j = 1, . . . , m ) is
k-e
P.;(K) = - 1) + ~ ; r ( k ) s ; l ( k ) ~ , ( k=) 2 a ~ - C ~ ~ ( t ) ~ . ; l ( e ) (4-9)
~j(e)
E=O

where v j ( k ) is the innovation from the filter based on model j. The "effective"
memory length is (1 - a j ) - I . Let S j ( k ) = S, be the steady-state covariance of the
innovations from filter j. Then, it is possible to replace Equation (4-7) with
-- I
1 1
P_I ( k ) = ~ , e - ' ~ " ~P;(O)
' Cce-1 ,P<(k)
Pe(O), C , = I S j I ?(I - a,) (4- 10)
/:I

where Pc ( 0 )are the prior model probabilities. If these prior probabilities are equated
to the posterior probabilties, then Equation (4-10) simplifies to Pi =
I
/
c,~-$"~) cce -7,:')
1
- A typical multiple model estimation is drawn in Figure
4-4 in which the combination of the estimates is done according to Equation
(4-8).

4.3 PREDICTION AND SMOOTHING

The methods of the previous sections are concerned with the problem of estimating
the state of a system at time t based on the measurements from time io to i. This
problem is called the filtering problem. In this section, formulae for the predicted
state, that is, ? ( t ) based on nleasurements fro111to to I.,- < I , and the smoothed state,
that is, 2 ( t ) based on measurements from to to I,,., t E (to, tn) are presented. Since
prediction and s t ~ ~ o o t h i ninvolvc
g state estimates at times othcr than the measure-
ment time, the follo\ving notation is employed in this section.
2(f I t ~ ) expected
: value of x ( t ) based on measurements from to t o t N
P(t I I,.): covariance matrix at time t based on measurements from to to I~

(4-11)
Ssc. 4.3 Predlctlon and Smoothing

System

+
Dynamics

Measurement
System
Combination
of Estimates -
$ p

+%
ICalculation of
Probabilities I
Figure 4-4 Multiple Model Estimation

In a discrete-time system, Equation (4-11) is rewritten as

.+(k I N):cxpected value of x(k) based on measurements from k = 0 to k = N
P(k I h'):covariance matrix at time k based on measurements from k = 0 to k = N
(4- 12)

I t should be noted that many intermediate and advanced books on state estimation
employ this notation for all developments including the filtering problem. Equations
(4-11) are simply the estimates at t conditioned under the measurements up to t , ~ ,
and thus are called the conditional expectations of the state and covariance.

4.3.1 Prediction

Actually the prediction problem has already been presented as part of the filtering
problem. Optimal prediction can be thought of in terms of optimal filtering in the
absence of measurements, that is, R = 0, and hence the filter gain is zero. In par-
ticular, for the continuous dynamics, discrete measurement case, the state and co-
variance propagation equations between measurements represent the best estimates
of the state and covariance. A similar situation is true for the discrete dynamics case,
and thus the prediction equations are as follows:

Linear, discrete Kalman filter-Equations (2) and (4) of Table 4-1

i(kIN)=@(k-l)i(k-lIhq+Y(k-l)u(k-1) fork>N
~ ( ( khq = @(k - i ) ~ ( k- 1 I iv)aT(k > I ) +~ ( -k i ) ~ ~ - , -
~ 1)
~ ( k
(4-1 3)
Linear, continuous Kalman filter-Equations (4-la and 4-lc) with R-' = 0
 140 Modem Filtering and Estimation Technlques Chap. q

and K = 0, that is
B(r 1 t , ) = A(t)i(t 1 tN) + B(t)~i(t) for t > tN (4- 14)
~ ( 1 t,t) = A(t)P(t 1 t,) + P(r 1 tN)A T(t) + N ( t ) ~ ( t ) ~ ~ ( t )
Nonlinear, continuous EKF-Equations (4-5b and 4-5c) with R-' = O and
K=O
i(t It ~ =) f[t, I ( t I tN), i*(t)] for t > t~ (4- 15)
P 1t ) = A[t, q t ( tN)lP(t ( t ~ +) P(t 1 t ~ ) A ~ [ t , 1 t ~ ) 1+ Q(t)

With R-' = O implying infinite variance, that is, no measurement or worthless

measurement, K = O gives no weighting to a measurement aspect in propagating 2.

4.3.2 Smoothing

The primary advantage of Kalman's solution is that the equations that specify the
optimum filter are recursive in nature, so that they can be adapted easily to the
digital computer. However, Kalman filtering does not consider the important prob-
lem of smoothing. AGNC [1986(f)] presents a simple and elegant derivation of the
principal equations for smoothing. The derivation is based on the method of max-
imum likelihood and depends primarily on the simple manipulation of the proba-
bility density functions. The resulting equations of the linear discrete smoother are
summarized in Table 4-Sa, while the linear continuous smoother can be derived
and is summarized in Table 4-5b. Finally, the stnoother of this section is called a
fixed-interval smoother since the interval [0, N] is fixed and 2(k 1 is obtained
from k E [0, S ] .T w o other types of smoothers are the fixed point (fixing k and
determining 2(k 1 N) as N increases) and the fixed lag (given h r = constant, de-
termine 2(k - A1 I k) as k increases). Equations for each of these smoothers for
continuous and discrete time are developed in Gelb [1974].

4.4 KALMAFl FILTER DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

The design of a well-tuned Kalman filter is achieved only after successfully iterating
a process that combines system modeling with performance analysis and trade-off
studies. While system modeling is based mainly on physical insight with respect to
the problem a t hand, performance capabilities arc often subject to computational
constraints and requirements imposed by the actual hardware involved. Therefore,
although Kalman filter theory embodies a good deal of mathematical formalism,
much effort is still spent arriving at an acceptable design.
When the Kalrnan filter state estimates arc used as the state feedback, that is,
when the Kalman filter is inserted into the control loop, a precise design method-
ology may be as follows [Maybeck, 19791. The first step consists of developillg a
Sec. 4 . 4 Kalman Filter Design and Performance Analysls 141

TABLE 4-5 (A) LINEAR DISCRETE SMOOTHER (6)LINtAR CONTINUOUS SMOOTHER

a) Linear Discrete Smoother

Given Eq. (5) of Table 2-1,
Step 1: Apply the linear discrete time Kalman filter (Table 4-1) for
k E[O, N], and denote % (k I k) = he)+, P(k I k) = P;
P(k I k-1) = P; and %(k1 k-1) = %(ky
Step 2: Smoother State Estimate
%(kI N) = %(k1 k) + Ck[4(k+l I N) - k(k+l 1 k)]
where Ck = P(k I k) oT(k) P(k+ll k).' and k(N I N) = &N)+
Step 3: Error Covorinnce Matrix Propagation
P(k I N) = P(k I k) + C,[P(k+ll N) - P(k+ll k)] C:
where P(NIN)=P;
b) Linear Continuous Smoother
Given Eq. (3) of Table 2-1 and k(to) = %,, P(to) = Po
Step I:
Apply the linear continuous Kalman filter (Sec. 4.1.2) for t E [to, i], and denote the
resultant state and covariance by iF(t), PF(t).
Step 2:
The smoothed state and covariance at t E [to, i] are denoted by %(tI i) and P(t I i), and are
determined by integrating backward the coupled differential equations from i to I,
d -1 = - P ~ A - A
-P T -1 1
P ,-P;NQN T -1
P, + HT R -1 H, p B 6 j1 = O
dt B
T -1
~ = - ( A ~ + P ~ N Q N ~ ) ~ + Px, ~yB( i ~) =+o H R
and then substituting the resultant y(t), pB(tjl into:
p(t1ij1 = pB(tjl + p,(tj1
-
i(t Ii) = &,(I) + ~ (1 i)t [y(t) ~ i ( tQt)]
)

dynamic model that ideally resembles system behavior and validating the model
with experimental data. While it may not be of any benefit to develop an overly
complex physically based model, it is absolutely necessary to develop one which
lends itself well to Kalman filter design. The second, and perhaps most significant,
step is to design and tune the filter against performance requirements, comparing
estimation errors with the specifications and taking into account computational con-
straints. The complexity of the filter may be influenced by the definition of state
variables and the choice of coordinate system for certain applications. In the next
step, an attempt is made to combine and remove states where possible, and to delete
142 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

weak cross couplings, in order to obtain reduced-order filters. At this stage, possible
approximations to the optimal gain are also evaluated. Following this, a covariance
sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulations-are conducted, after which it is
then possible to select a final design based o n a trade-off between the performance
and the computational requirements. Finally, the last step consists of performing a
checkout, final tuning, and an operational test of the filter. Further details of Kalman
state feedback design are presented in Book 3 of the series.

4.4.1 Kalman Filter Design Process

This section highlights in more detail the second step listed in the design procedure
outlined previously. Regarding Section 4.1.2, to reiterate, the design parameters
that can be selected to design the Kalman filter are z(r), w ( t ) (some of which may
be fictitious), Q, and R. The estimator dynamics gain and bandwidth are completely
determined by the measurement signal selected and the designer's specification of
Q and R for the design. Q and R are design parameters selected by the designer to
create the filter gain K, via the Riccati equation (4-la), and thus determine the
dynamics characteristics of the estimator. Actual physical process noise and mea-
surement noise will in general differ from these design values. For good estimator
performance, these specified noise intensities should roughly correspond to distur-
bances or uncertainties that will actually be encountered, since the estimator will
be tuned to these conditions. Sometimes, inexact inte~lsitiesare provided to the
Riccati equation in ordcr to achieve certain desirable filter characteristics, but the
engineer should be aware of the costs and benefits. Thc error covariancc P i s useful
in terms of certain limiting cases where constraints are established by the open-loop
model dynamics itself to bc placed on the effectiveness of the cstimator. Some very
rough Kalman filter design rules of thumb are given as follows. For small Q and
large R , the design tends to be such that the filter poles are close to the model
dynamic poles, the filter is a low-bandwidth filter, and there is slow state estimation
and good measurement noise rejection. For large Q and small R , the design tcnds
to be such that the filter poles approach the nlodel dynamic transmission zeros or
stable reflections thcreof (some actually move to infinity in the left half-plane), the
filter is a high-bandwidth filter, and there is fast state estimation and poor mea-
surement noise rejection. Some useful transfer functions for design follow.
From I A ) (to ~ ) ~ ( r )H(s1
: - A ) - I .Y (4- 16)
From x(r) to i ( r ) : ($1 - ('4 - K H ) ]- ' KH (4- 1 7)
From z ( t ) and rr(t) to i ( f )[ s:l - (A - KHJ- 'IBK] (4-1 8)

4.4.2 Selection of Noise Intensity Matrices

For given Q and R, specificd for a Kalman filtcr design, some propertics of the filter
follow. 111 general, the magnitude of estimator gain matrix K is proportional to the
magnitude of the Q and R - ' matrices. Multiplying Q and R by the same positive
Sec. 4.4 Kalman Filter Design and Performance Analysls 143

scalar k yields the same estimator as Q and R. The initial guess of Q and R can
easily be made using thc following rule of thumb. Since K is lowest for Q R - ' =
0 and increases as Q R - ' increases, the estimator break frequency is lowest for Q R - I
= 0 and increases as Q R - ' increases. The estimator bandwidth is high for low
measurement noisc and low for high measurement noisc. It is assumcd that Q =
.
diag(ql, qz, . . . q,,) and R = diag(rl, rz. . . . , r,,,). A nominal process
- with
noisc intensities 71, . . . , q,, is applied, and the response intensity ?', . . . , ?,, that
comes through at the sensors due to the nominal process noisc Q (as the nominal
sensor response intensity) is recorded. Then R = diag(arl, a?,, . . . , a?,,,) is chosen
as the measurement noise for the filter design wherc a is a scalar that will be allowed
to vary, and will serve as the scanning parameter for the filter design.

Q9X-l- 0. In the case of stable, open-loop model dynamics, as R goes to

infinity or as Q approaches zero, analysis shows that the estimator operates open
loop. Moreover, P will be zero, K approaches zero, and the Kalman filter poles
move to the positions of the open-loop poles.

Example 4-2: Stable, first-order filter. The model dynamics cqua-

tions are $(I) = ax(t) + b ~ r ( t )+ w(t), E[w(t)] = 0, E[IU(~)LV(T)] = q8(t - T), z(t)
= hx(t) + ~ ( t )E[v(t)]
, ) ] r8(t - T), whcre a < 0, q 2 0, and
= 0, and E [ v ( ~ ) v ( T =
r > 0. The model dynamics transfer function is G(s) = hl(s - a). The Riccati
equation as specified by Equation (4-la) is h'P?ru - 2aP - q = 0 and yields
P = r[a + q a ' + h2(qlr)]/ll'. The Kalman filter gain is k = [a +
a + h'(q/r)]/h and the state estimate equation is

The preceding equations s h o ~ vthat the estimator dynamics are a function of the
ratio qlr, and not of either q or r alone. T h e root locus of the Kalman filter is shown
in Figure 4-5a and is discussed here. Using Equation (4-17). the transfer function
from x(t) to 2(t) is
k(3) - kh k(0) kh
- where the DC gain is --- - (4-20)
X(r) s - (a - kh) X(0) -a+kh
The magnitude of x(s)/x(~) as a function of frequency is plotted for increasing
values of qlr in Figure 4-5b. For a given value of r, increasing the value of q in the
design results in increased values of the gain k. From Equation (4-20), this means
that X(O)/X(O)will tend to unity. Also, for a constant v, increasing q will increase
the estimator bandwidth, while for a constant q, decreasing r will have the same
effect. N o w , if the input u is zero, and w is a constant but unknown disturbance,
then at steady-state conditions the model dynamics equations imply that x = w l a
= constant, while, from the state estimate equation, i= 0 and

2 = (khx + kv)l(-a + kh) (4-21)

 Modem Filtering and Estimation Tecftnlques Chap. 4

Imaginary

Real
b\ a

Imaginary

qh- qir = 0
k- = k =0
1
-a a
Real
Open-Loop
Model ~ ~ n a m iPole
cs
Figure 4-5 Selection of Noise Intensity Parameters q and r

Assuming n o measurement noisc, that is, v = 0, and using Equations (4-20), it is

true that
2 = kkhxl(-a + kh) = X(O)X/X(O) = k ( O ) u ) / [ ~ ( O ) a ]
As noted previously from Equation (4-20). specifying a large q means that ~ ( 0 ) l
X(0) will be close to unity, and that x wrill be close to 2 at stcady state. Under thcsc
conditions, the state estimate is a good disturbancc cstin~atc.If, on the other hand,
w = 0 but v is a constant but unknown disturbancc (for example, a sensor bias),
then Equation (4-21) at stcady state becomes 2 = kvl( - a + kh). When q > 0 and
r > 0 , then Equation (4-19) bccorncs

2(t) = -da2 + h2(q/r) :(I) + b11(t) + la + qa2 + k2(qlr)]~(t)lh

and thc transfer function fro111 the measurement inputs z ( t ) to the state estimatc
Sec. 4.4 Kaiman Filter Design and Performance Analysls 145

=)[a + g a 2
i ( t ) , given by Equation (4-18) is x ( s ) / z ( s + h2(q/r)]l[h(s +
V a * + }t*(q/r))].T w o limiting cases are now considered.
Case I : q -r 0. This case corresponds to zero process noise, implying no
uncertainty about the model dynamic statc, including x(O), exists. For this case, P
= 0, k = 0, and the statc estimate equation is ;(I) = o.?(t) + bu(r) and i ( 0 ) =
x ( 0 ) . The filter therefore generates open loop. For a constant step input at steady
state, 2 = x = hula = constant.
Case 2: r -r0. In this case, the filter bandwidth, or break frequency, ap-
proaches infinity, k also approaches infinity, but P approaches zero. Also, as shown
in Figure 4-5c, x(s)/z(s) = Ilh.

Unstable open-loopmodel dynamics. When the open-loop model dy-

namics are unstable, the estimator gains are nonzero, and the error covariance will
not go to zero even when there is little or no process noise. In addition, the estimator
poles move toward the positions of the stable poles which are the left half-plane
reflections (about thejw-axis) of the unstable open-loop poles. This is termed the
minimum measurement effort estimator, and sets a lower limit on thc estimator
gains. Even in thc Lvorst case, therefore, the Kalman filter always guarantees c l o d -
loop system stability by providing the minimum measurement effort estimator as
long as the model dynamics are completely observable. However, in classical design
approaches, when the model dynamics have right half-plane poles, the closed-loop
system is unstable for low filter gains.

Example 4-3: Unstable first-order filter. The open-loop model dy-

namics for this example are the same as the previous example, except that now a
> 0. Similarly, the model dynamics transfer function, the Kalman filter gain, and
the state estimate equation are also the same, respectively. Finally, the root locus
of the Kalman filter is sholvn in Figure 4-5d in which the estimator locus begins
at the stable reflection of the open-loop model dynamics pole. If q > 0 and r > 0,
then not only is the state estimate equation identical to that in the previous example,
but A ( s ) / ~ ( s is
) also identical. Again, it is possible to consider two limiting cases.
Case 1: q + 0 . Here, the variance and filter gain are nonzero and are given
by P = 2aih"and k = 2 a / h , and the filter equation becomes i ( t ) = a$(t) + bu(t)
+ 2az(t)lh.
Case 2: r -+ 0. The results are the same as those in the previous example.

Example 4-4: Neutrally stable first-orderfilter. In this example, the

open-loop model dynamics are again the same as those in Example 4-2, but this
time a = 0. Setting a = 0 in Equation (3) of Example 4-2 also gives the model
dynamics transfer function, while the state estimate equation becomes i ( t ) = bu(t)
+ k(z(t) - h?(t)) and k = g&. Hence, as in the previous two examples, the
estimator dynamics are a function of the ratio q l r . The important point to highlight
146 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. 4

in this example, however, is that, if q = 0, then k = 0 and i ( t ) = bu(t), and the

estimator is neutrally stable, which is unacceptable. If q > 0, the estimator is stable
with a pole at - kh. Therefore, if the open-loop model dynamics have a pole on
the jw-axis, it must be disturbed with a process noise in order to have a stable
estimator. For a zero input, u = 0, and a constant initial state x(O), at steady state,
x = x(0). From the state estimate equation, 2 = x + v l h . If v = 0, then 2 = x
= k(0).

QR-'-, m. In this case, all measurement covariances R go to zero (that is,

ideal sensors with excellent measurements) or the process covariance Q goes to
infinity. As R goes to zero or as Q approaches infinity, the estimator gains increase
drastically, and the bandwidth of the resulting Kalman filter increases very rapidly.
When all the transmission zeros in the model dynamics are in the left half-plane,
that is, minimum phase, the closed-loop poles asymptotically approach the trans-
mission zeros, and the residues of the slow model which is created by the poles
approaching zero have small values in 2 ( t ) = x ( t ) - 2(f). However, the residues
of these modes in K[z(t) - H<(t)] are not small. If the number of sensorslmea-
surements is greater than or equal to the number of disturbances, the error covariance
P approaches zero under the condition of ideal sensors or as Q approaches infinity.
However, in both minimum and nonminimum phase systems, if there are more
disturbances than measurements, the minimum value P can achieve for any corn-
bination of Q and R is always strictly positive. This is true even if the product QR-'
becomes infinite. Therefore, even in the event of having all ideal sensors, perfect
estimation cannot be achieved as long as there are not enough sensors.
As shown in Examples 4-2 to 4-4, as qlr approaches infinity, the estimator
poles move toward the transfer function zeros located at - x (see Figures 4-ja and
4-5b). Nonminimum phase systems impose dcfinitc restrictions on the accuracy
which the filter can achieve. When the trans~nissionzeros of the model dynamics
are in the right half-plane (no~~minimum phasc), as the measurcrnents approach
perfection the cstimator has high gains, and the closed-loop Kalman filter eigenvalucs
move towards the positions of the stable poles which are the left half-plane reflections
(about thejw-axis) of the unstable transmission zeros of G(s). Thus, unstable trans-
mission zeros are not desirable because they lead to an inefficient estimator. The
residues of these modes remain large as the estimator gains increase for the closcd-
loop system. Even if the number of measurcrnents is greatcr than or equal to the
numbcr of disturbances, the resulting error covariance docs not approach zero and
is much larger than that for minimum phasc systems. Optin~alestimation always
guarantces closcd-loop system stability evcn in thc evcnt of high cstimator gains.
Howcver, in classical design, for a nonminimuln phase systcn~,thc closed-loop
system is unstablc for high controller gains.

4.4.3 Error Analysis

,Examining thc state cstimatc equations (4-I), the structural csscnce of thc Kaln1a11
filter is that which is also used in the general case. Also, the definition for K ( t ) is
that which defines the optimal gain, and thus the optimal filter, and is shown to bc
Sec 4.4 Kalman Filter Design and Performance Anaiysls 147

a particular case of the general filter gain matrix developed in this section. For the
case of a general filter gain matrix, the state estimate error is defined as f(t) = ?(I)
- x(t) and E[.f(r)] = 0, which yields the error dynamics of the estimator

The linear error dynamic system is therefore being driven by white noise, as shown
in Figure 4-6a. As shown in Figure 4-6b, the Kalman filter is thought of as a
regulator loop in error estimate .i. coordinates. The equation defining the error co-
variance for the filter with a general filter gain matrix K(t) is given by

If the eigenvalues of A - K H are in the left half-plane, the estimator is stable and,
as r approaches infinity, the state estimate i ( t ) converges to the actual state x(t) and
the estimator error 2(r) approaches zero. The design procedure consists of selecting
the filter gain matrix K(t) that places the estimator eigenvalues in the desired lo-
cations. A wide bandwidth gives fast rate estimates but lets measurement noise
corrupt the estimates. Using the Kalman filter gain Equation (4-lb), the error dy-
namics Equation (4-22) is a stable linear system driven by white noise. Substituting
in Equation (4-23) the Kalman filter gain gives the same equation for Pas in Equation
(4-la). As t becomes large, the error covariance P(t) in Equation (4-23) satisfies
P(;) = 0 and the steady-state covariance matrix is obtained by solving the linear
Lyapunov matrix equation,

The Kalman filter gain minimizes P(t). That is, P ( t ) from Equation (4-24) using a

+
A-KH

b I 'f+@ I

I------- _I Figure 4-6 Error Dynamic Model for

Kalman Filter
 148 Mdern Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

general filter gain matrix is always greater than P(t) from Equation (4-2) using
the Kalman filter gain Equation (4--3).

minimizing minimizing trace

(by Kalman gain) P = + u:, + +
u s + ... u:,,

For the particular case in which all the states are measured, H = I and R = diag(rl,
r2, . . . , r,), and the Kalman filter gain then becomes

K = PH~R-'= (4-25)

The ith component of the state estimate is

2 2
+ ... + -
u*--;pi
((t) - 2,))
u*;,,
+ ... + - @,,(I) - i t + ...
rj r,,
If the noise intensity ri is large, the gains uZ,+;lrj will be small, and the signal zi(t)
will not be weighted heavily in computing 2i(t). If, however, the error covariance
crzjr, is large, the gains ~ : , ~ , l will
r , be large, and the signals will be weighted heavily
in computing i , ( t ) .

4.5 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Problem-dependent judgments must often be made to enhance filter performailce

(for example, reduce the transient time in the estimation procedure at the expense
of a greater variance), reduce computational requirements, furnish missing infor-
mation (for example, the Kaln~anfilter needs complete a priori covariance infor-
mation on the initial state, process noise, and il1easuremcnt noise), and/or establish
procedures for stabilizing diverging filter estimates. In the Kalman filter in~plc-
mentation, the computation of the transition matrix together with the propagation
of the error covariance matrix represent a substantial fraction of the overall COIII-
putation effort necessary. Fortunately, because the accuracy of these quantities nccd
not be as great as that required by the state vector, the former may be computed
at a slower rate than the state vector update. In numerous applications, essential
Set 4.5 Operational Considerations 149

statistics information concerning the process and measurement noise, in the form
of standard deviations and correlation time constants, may cither be missing alto-
gether or be poorly defined. Moreover, the analytical formulation ofthis information
rarely reflects the behavior of the actual nlcasurements, resulting in reliable data for
an extended period of time followed by a series of poor data points. Filter operation
is further affected by modeling errors, linearization approximations, and the re-
duced-state nature of practical filters. Because of all this, the covariance matrix
computed from the Riccati equation of the Kalman filter may not resemble the true
covariance matrix of errors in the cstin~atedstate. For this reason, many simulations
need to be performed to adequately examine filter performance [Baheti, 19871.

4.5.1 Filter Performance

The Kalman filter is capable of solving a certain optimization problem (minimum

variance), which is an indicator of filter accuracy. For numerous problems, however,
additional considerations in the filter design (for example, settling time to a steady-
state value, sensitivity to parameter variations) may be more significant than de-
termining the estimation with the least variance. For instance, it may be necessary
to obtain a constant gain filter that has the minimum settling time subject to an
upper-bound constraint on the trace of the covariance. Figure 4-7a shows hypo-
thetical state estimates and variances for the minimum variance and minimum set-
tling time filters [Powers, 19781. It is also possible to design a filter that minimizes
a function of both the variance and the sensitivity of the filter to modifications in
a system parameter. Figure 4-7b illustrates a hypothetical case where the Kalman
filter is the minimum variance filter for a = a" (that is, the design value); however,
it is not necessarily the minimum variance filter for off-design values. In this par-
ticular case, the minimum sensitivity filter, being less sensitive to parameter changes,
would probably be the best filter for an application in which a was known to vary
over the range [a,, az]. In defense of the ~ a l m a nor minimum variance filter, it is
possible to compute the Kalman gain without iteration. In the two problems noted
previously (minimum settling time and sensitivity), iterative parameter optimization
schemes are required to determine the filter gains; thus, they would be employed
only when the Kalman filter is not adequate for the given application. An appropriate
reduction of the number of states modeled will cause a suboptimal filter to become
a noticeably smaller computer. Figure 4-7c illustrates that this suboptimal filter may
be employed to reduce the sensitivity to uncertain parameters.

4.5.2 Computational Requirements

Kalman filtering fundamentally represents a digital computer-oriented approach to

state estimation. Thus, the analysis of a Kalman filter would consider all problems
inherent to the digital computer.
150 Modem FIlterlng and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

Minimum Variance Estimate

Minimum Settling Time Estimate

Trace P(t)

r
I
For Minimum Settling Time Filter

For Minimum Variance Filter

Trace P

Figure 4-7 (a) Minimum Variance vs. Minimum Settling Time Filter Performance
(b) Covariance as a Function o f Parameter Variation for Minimum Sensitivity and
Variance Filters (c) Conceptual Example of Minimum Sensitivity Filter
 I and sensitivity trade-off)
I I
I I
I I n>m>P
I I
I I
I I
I I

i'
al

C Expected Range of Uncertainty

Figure 4-7 (Continued)

Square-root filter. The reliability of time-varying Kalman filters has been

significantly improved by the so-called square-root or (uDu') algorithms [Bier-
man, 1977; Kaminski et al., 19711. They propagate the square root of the symmetric
covariance matrix instead of the covariance matrix; this provides almost twice the
accuracy for a certain computer word-length as Kalman's original algorithm. In
addition, this process also prevents numerical truncation from generating a covar-
iance matrix that has negative eigenvalues [Bryson, 19851. Filtering problems can
result from the finite word length of the digital computer. For instance, after nu-
merous measurements have been processed, round-off error build-up can produce
theoretically impossible filter behavior. In other words, the Kalman filter is enhanced
assuming infinite precision, and accumulated round-off errors can cause the covar-
iance matrix update to result in a nonpositive, semidefinite matrix. The main way
of dealing with this problem is to utilize the square-root filter. This filter was initially
developed [Potter, 19641 to rectify Kalman filter implementation problems in the
Apollo program. The computer employed in the Apollo spacecraft program was a
fixed-point digital computer.
The square-root filter involves a reformulation of the propagation and update
equations in terms of a matrix S , where P = S S T (that is, S represents the square
root of the covariance matrix). Utilizing S instead of P causes the precision of the
computation to essentially double. In addition, it also prevents P from being non-
positive and semidefinite. Unfortunately, the fact that the matrix S is not unique
results in a proliferation of square-root algorithms [Andrews, 1968; Bellantoni and
152 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. 4

Dodge, 1967; Kaminski et al., 39711. The adverse effect of employing the square-
root filter is that it requires more computer time. However, recent developments
with more efficient implementation have substantially decreased this effect. Bierman
[I9771 discusses these efficiencies and the computer program listing of the Jet Pro-
pulsion Laboratory orbit determination program square-root filter.

Suboptimal filter. Another computer-oriented problem that relates to the

Kalman filter is the potentially numerous differential equations that must be inte-
grated (that is, state and covariance differential equations). Because the major portion
of computer burden in Kalman filtering is typically represented by the solution of
the error covariance equations, an effective way to make the filter satisfy computer
hardware limitations is to precompute the error covariance, and thus, the filter gain.
As a result, the suboptimal filters for a simplified system model are usually imple-
mented instead of the optimal Kalman filter. Suboptimal filters may deal with fewer
state variables (for example, states that produce negligible effects in the Kalman filter
are ignored), fewer covariance equations, and in many cases, simplified filter gains
which approximate the optimal Kalman gains. T o avoid on-line covariance calcu-
lations, the error covariance matrix can be computed at an earlier stage and the filtcr
gain histories are obtained. While a prerecorded set of precise gain histories could
be stored and utilized, a more effective method is to approximate the optimal gain
behavior by analytical functions of time, which can be easily computed in real time.
A piecewise constant suboptimal gain and a decaying exponential function gain can
be employed. Steady-state gains referring to the limiting case of a set of pieccwise
constant gains can also be employed by choosing each gain to be constant over all
time. A Kalman filter that utilizes steady-state gains is idcntical to a Wiener filtcr.
In numerous practical systcms, the constant-gain Wiener filtcr offers estimating
accuracy that is equivalent to that of the more sophisticated Kalman filter, but a t
one third of the computational cost [Powers, 19781.

Kalman filter design software. A parameter estimation subroutine

package for the construction of efficient multipurpose estimation algorithms has
becn developed [Bicrnlan and Nead, 19781. This software was developed under
NASA contract of thc Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and has been applied to several
Kalman filter designs and simulations. More rcccnt works [Pappas et al., 1980;
Verhaegcn and Van Dooren, 19861 have rcsultcd in significant improvements in the
computational reliability obtainable in the nu111cricalsolution of the Riccati equation.
The algorithms arc applicable to problems with singular transition matrices \vhich
arisc in thc case of sampling a continuous-time systcm with time dclays. A softwarc
package has also becn devcloped [Arnold and Laub, 19831 that solves the gcncraIizcd
algcbraic Iiiccati cquation. Many research organizations have already dcvelopcd an
interactive Kalman filtcr analysis and design package. By making the softwarc user
friendly and easily adaptable, providing a broad range of graphics capabilitics, 2nd
supplying numerically cfficicnt algorithms, thcy have produccd a rathcr elegant 2nd
powerful tool for the dcsigncr's use. Such tools will invariably si~nplifythe Kalmnn
Sec. 4.5 Operational Considerations 153

filter dcsign proccss in the future and may at the same time substantially improve
performance (Bahcti, 19871.

4.5.3 Absence of A Priori Information

Much a priori information, that is, .?(I)), P, Q(r), and R ( r ) , is required by the Kalman
filter. If this information is not available, then straightforward least-squares tech-
niques (recursive or batch) should be applied. In many cases, the Kal~nanfilter
approach can still be elnployed successfully even though only a portion of the re-
quired a priori statistics is known. This occurs because of several reasons. First, the
order of magnitude estimates or relative magnitudes of the statistics can be guessed,
and then a Kalman filter can be established. Often, the resultant filter performs
adequately. Second, if the first reason given prcviously produces undesirable per-
formance, then an analysis of the simulations should indicate which missing a priori
statistics are most critical. An acceptable filter design can be achieved through a
parameter study involving the critical statistical parameters. Finally, in numerous
cases, .?,, and Po are the absent values. In some systems, these parameters mainly
affect initially stable, transient effects and have little impact on the long-term op-
eration of the filter. Note that the steady-state Kalman gain is independent of ko
and Po. Another technique of dealing with absent statistics is to develop an adaptive
filter (that is, the statistics are generated as the proccss proceeds by analyzing dif-
ferences between the model predictions and the measurements) [Powers, 19781.
Adaptive filter techniques can be found in several textbooks. Details of adaptive
filters are presented in Book 4 of the series. An identification problem occurs when
@(k) and q ( k ) in a discrete case, or A and B in a continuous case, are unknown.
This problem is the topic of Book 4 of the series. If process noise w ( k ) in a discrete
case, or w ( t ) in a continuous case, is known, then the on-line identification of the
process covariance Q h in a discrete case, o r Q ( t ) in a continuous case, is required.
A problem will occur if the initial value is not known and thus, P is unknown.

4.5.4 Filter Divergence

T w o sources of error which may cause the measured performance of a Kalman filter
to differ from what was analytically predicted are modeling errors and computer
round-off errors. As a result of these, errors in the estimates may become intolerably
large at some point during the operation of the filter. Filter divergence is often
explained in terms of the calculated covariance matrix, the assertion being that this
matrix becomes unrealistically small and results in placing unreasonable confidence
in the estimates. Consequently, the filter gain is reduced and subsequent measure-
ments are effectively ignored. In the study of Kalman filters, divergence refers to
the situation where the estimated filter error converges to a value less than the true
filter error. In some cases of divergence, the true error converges to a finite value;
this is known as an apparent divergence. This is typically caused by errors in the
mathematical model of the process (for example, neglected forces which generate
154 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

a bounded-state response). The resultant filter may perform satisfactorily for the
particular application, with the only deficiency being the estimate of the error by
/
the Kalman filter approach [Powers, 19781. True divergence represents the most
critical type of divergence in filter design. This type of divergence means that the
true error becomes arbitrarily large as time increases while the estimated error con-
verges to a finite value. True divergence is usually the result of unmodeled effects
which can cause an unbounded-state variable response, or in some cases, the type
of instability presented in Section 4.1.2.
" .
Several methods. of which the use of larger vrocess noise covariance and es-
ponential data weighting have been particularly successful, have been applied t o the
~.

problem of avoiding filter divergence and improving the estimation accuracy. The
increased noise covariance offsets modeling errors and improves filter stability, while
exponentially weighting the measurements prohibits obsolete data from saturating
the filter and sets a lower bound on the filter gain [Baheti, 19871. A primary factor
in the onset of filter divergence that surfaced after many Kalman filter implemen-
tations is computer round-off errors in the covariance propagation equations. To
maintain acceptable numerical accuracy, these equations generally require double-
precision computations. As shown in Section 4.5.2, algorithms have been developed
based on matrix square-root propagation, which are capable of producing an ef-
fective precision that is double that of the conventional Kalman filter. A procedure
similar to the square-root formulation and called U-D covariance factorization, has
also been developed and tested in many applications for consistency and stability.
Studies emphasizing number of operations, actual C P U time, and data storage re-
quirements have demonstrated that optimally coded U-D factorization and the con-
ventional Kalman filter implementations are very similar. However, for processing
large sets of data with infrequent estimates, an even more efficient algorithm has
been developed called a square-root information filter [Bierman, 19771.
Most of the procedures that deal with true divergence are conservative,
straightforward methods that increase stability, and thus, degrade the performance.
Although one could obviously attempt to estimate unmodeled states, the resultant
filter size would most likely be This is especially significant in practical
applications where the process models are not always completely validated. In-
creasing the process noise in the model (for example, making Q(t) a positive, definite
matrix) represents a simplified way to approach the divergence problem. This ap-
proach implies that one does not know the model exactly, and will not allow the
state estimate propagation equation to predict 2(t) with absolute certainty (that is,
P(f) = 0). As noted in previous examples, if Q(r) = 0, then the Kalman gain may
approach zero and thus not use any additional measurements in the state propagation
equation. The effect of Q(t) > O causes P(r) > 0. In othcr words, a nonzero lower
bound implies a nonzcro Kalman gain. An increase in the error estimate and poor
performance will be thc effects of an arbitrary selection of Q(t) > 0. More sophis-
ticated techniques that produce less pcrformancc loss are discussed in Book 4 of
series. The use of finite memory filtering represents an alternate solution for pre-
venting divergence.
 Kalman filter divergence and suboptimal design. If the eigenvalues
of Equation (4-24) arc in the right half-plane, the estimator is unstable and, as t
becomes large, the state estimate i ( fdiverges
) from the actual state x ( t ) and the
estimate error 2 approaches infinity. One of the principal causes of this failure is
that the systcm modcl contains states or models that are undisturbed by the model
process noise (modcl uncertainty). One cure for such problems is the periodic re-
starting of a time-varying Kalman filtcr. Other cures include minimum variance
observers with eigenvalues constraints, added noise, pole shifting, and destabili-
zation. Thc constrained minimum variance problem may be stated as follows [Bry-
son, 19781. Find a set of observer gains K that minimize J = trace (2hlP) where P
is found from Equation (4-23). ,\.I is a positive semidefinite matrix, and the gains
are C ( K ) > 0. This constraint ensures that the eigenvalues ( s i ) of A - K H always
lie in the left half-plane of the original point at - a , where u is a specified positive
number, that is, R,(si) 5 -0. The nccessary condition for minimizing J with con-
straints Equation (4-23) and C ( K ) > 0 is

The following example of estimating an undisturbed constant state demonstrates

this technique. The simplest model of a Kalman filter for a neutrally stable plant is
given in Example 4-4 where b = 0, q = 0, and h = 1 have been assumed here.
The initial state x ( 0 ) has zero-mean value and variance Po. The Kalman filter for
+
estimating x ( t ) is = k ( z - i )where k ( t ) = ( P o / r ) l [ l (Polr)t]instead of zero.
*
Clearly for t (rlPo), k ( t ) -+ 0 , and the estimator ignores the measurement z. In
practice, such a filter will almost certainly diverge for (Polr)t % 1 with drift errors.
From C ( K ) > 0, k = u where a is the eigenvalue constraint level. The variance 06
the estimator is predicted to be P ( t ) = Poe-2"' + ar(1 - e-2"')/2 so that P ap-
proaches ur12 in steady state, but the estimator will not diverge.
Schmidt [I9701 presents a method for modifying unsatisfactory Kalman filters
by introducing additional noise into the system model Equation (4-la). T h e spectral
densities of added noise may be varied until the filter has the desired stability. The
reason that this technique works can be seen by examining the steady-state error
covariance matrix equation in Equation (4-2). If certain elements of Q are zero,
corresponding elements in the steady-state value of P, and consequently K , are zero.
However, if these elements of Q are assumed to be nonzero, then the corresponding
elements of K will be nonzero, and the filter will always try to track the true system.
The choice of the appropriate level of the elements of Q is mainly heuristic, and
depends largely on what is known about the unmodeled states.
Breza and Bryson [I9741 present a pole-shifting method in which the first step
is to design the steady-state Kalman filter. If the stability is unsatisfactory, the slow
eigenvalues are shifted to specified, faster eigenvalues by changing the gains so as
to leave the other eigenvalues unchanged. The method does not give a unique so-
lution if there are two or more measurements.
156 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. 4

4.5.5 Modeling Process Noise and Biases

Fundamental to Kalman filter theory is the use of white Gaussian state and mea-
surement noise models. In actual practice, random inputs are likely to be time cor-
related and represented by first-order or second-order Gauss-Markov process.
Moreover, the dynamical system may be subject to certain parameters whose values
are not well known. Augmenting the original state vector to include the exponen-
tially correlated process noise and biases is a method commonly employed, but this
can greatly increase the amount of computations required for many applications
[Baheti, 19871. An algorithm for partitioning the estimation of the bias variables,
or unknown constants, from the dynamic variables was published by Friedland
[1969]. One advantage realized by the use of this algorithm is reduced data storage
requirements in the computer. A second advantage of the partitioning is that it
creates additional analytical insight to the filter behavior based on special properties
of the variables. The following reviews the basic theory behind separate bias esti-
mation. It begins by considering a discrete-time process
x(k + 1 ) = A ( k ) x ( k ) + B(k)b + w ( k ) and z ( k ) = H ( k ) x ( k ) + C ( k ) b + v ( k )
where w ( k ) and v ( k ) are white Gaussian noise processes and b is a constant but
unknown bias vector. The optimum estimates ? ( k ) and b^(k)are given by ? ( k ) =
Z(k) + ~ 6 ( k where
-x ( k ) is the ) Z ( k ) is computed as if no bias errors were present. That is,
optimal "bias-free" estimate, which is then corrected to account for the
effect of the bias. The matrix V represents the ratio of the cross covariance matrix
of the bias-free state cstimate and the covariance matrix of the bias. Such a decom-
position becomes very practical in the case of a large number of bias parameters.
The dynamical modcl parameters, noise statistics, and initial estimates of a particular
system to which the Kalman filter is applied generally do not agrce with the real
system that generates the observations. In the case of using a model of fewer di-
mensions than the original model to reduce the number of computations, such
differences are imposed deliberately. The price of using a reduced-order model may,
however, be degraded filter performance. Algorithms for analyzing the mean-square
error performance when the system model is not the model used in the filter dcsign
have been developed Uazwinski, 19701. The error analysis generated is particularly
useful for conducting sensitivity studies. That is, one can study the effect of some
known variation about a norllinal value in a ccrtain system paramctcr on the filter
pcrformancc, if the filter is dcsigncd using the nominal valuc.
Timc-corrclatcd noisc is occasionally rcfcrred to as colored noise, as opposed
to white noise. In thc discrctc modcl case, it is callcd sequentially correlated noise.
The utilization of this type of information should cnhancc filtcr performance. Fol-
lowing Powers [1978],procedures for dealing with timc-correlated noise with dif-
fcrential equation models arc discusscd here. Suppose that the measurcmerlt r~oise
is white, but the proccss noisc is colored with thc corresponding discrctc-time niodcl
cases,
where wl ( t ) represents zero-mean white noise with variance G, and @ ( t o ) and
E{[w(t,,) - @ ( t o ) ] [w(to) - @(to)lT}are assumed known. If the random process
[Equation (4-26)) is a Gauss-Markov process, then it can always be expressed by
a linear dynamic system with white noise forcing function only

where li, is zero-mean white noise with variance Q. Equation (4-27) and the mea-
surement equation can then be treated by all of the results developed in the previous
'
sections. Note that Q - is never required in these equations, which allows the colored-
process noise case to be treated by simply defining the augmented state vector of
Equation (4-27). The colored-measurement noise case is more complicated because it
invariably leads to a singular measurement covariance matrix, which is not allowable
in the standard Kalman filter equations since they involve R - ' . Supposing
.G = A x + Nw, Z = Hx + v, b = Fv + Gvl (4-28)
where w and v l are uncorrelated zero-mean white noise with variance Q and R ,
respectively, and Equation (4-28) defines the correlation properties of the mea-
surement noise v, in which E[v(to)]= 0 and ~ [ v ( t ~ ) v ( t =o )Vo.
~ ] Define

which implies, upon differentiation of z ,

i(t) = (H + H A - FH)x + H N w + Go,, i t ) = x + I7 (4-30)
+
where H = H H A - FH, I7 = HNw +
C v l , and E[i;] = H h l E [ w ] + G E [ v l ]
+
= 0, E[i;ijT] = H N E [ w w T ] N T H T G E [ v l v T ] G T = [ H N Q N ~ H + ~GRGT]r
x 8(t - 7 ) = ~ 8 ( -t 7 ) . Here, use has been made of the fact that E [ w ( ~ ) v I ( T ) ~ ]
= 0. It should be noted that in the new problem variables ( x , i ) , the process and
measurement white noises w and 17 are now correlated as

However, this case is easily handled by employing Equation (4-ld) instead of Equa-
tion (4-lb) with S(t) = Q ( t ) N ( t ) T ~ ( t )Thus
T.

As shown in Bryson and H o [1975],one need not perform the differentiation of

the measurement signal z in Equation (4-29) by introducing

x* 9 i ( t ) - K ( t ) z ( t )J i* . (4-32)
= (A - KH)(X* + K z ) - ( K + KF)z, xF = i0- K(to)z(to)
 158 Modem filtering and Estlmation Techniques Chap. 4

which would then replace Equations (4-31) in the filter calculations. Finally, to
determine 2(t) and P(t) from Equations (4-31), care must be taken with respect to
the initial conditions for the integration. Note that the derivation of the Kalman
filter assumes that 2o and S(to) are not conditioned upon any other information.
However, in the x, 2 system, ,?(to) is conditioned upon knowledge of z(to) and
4(to), that is, Equation (4-29). Thus, for a proper application of the Kalman filter
equations, i ( t ) and P(to) should also be conditioned upon this information. One
can view this as the given io and Po corresponding to 2(tc) and P ( t f ) , respectively,
with a measurement 2(to)at to. Thus, the initial conditions for integrating Equations
(4-31) are
i ( t o ' ) = 20 + K(t0)[4(to)- ~ ( t o ) i ~ ] ,P ( t 2 ) = [ I - K(to)H(to)]Po
where K(to) is defined by Equation (4-31) with P = Po.

4.6 COMBINED COMPLEMENTARYIKALMAFI FILTER APPROACH

TO ESTIMATOR DESIGN

This section presents, derives, and verifies the continuous form of first-, second-,
and third-order complementary/Kalman filters. As discussed in Book 1 of the series,
conventional complementary filter architectures have been used with the filter gains
derived from Kalman filter techniques. These low-order filters are shown in various
NGC applications in Book 1 of the series. It was noted previously that comple-
mentary filters are really simple Kalman filters, but this section further highlights
this fact, especially after a thorough comparison of complementary and Kalman
filters.

4.6.1 First-Order Complementary/Kalman Filter

The generalized continuous mechanization forms of the first-order complementary/

Kalman filter are illustrated in Figure 4-8. A comparison of the complementary
filter and the Kalman filter is also shown in this figure. As in the standard first-
order filters, rate limiting is achieved by inserting a limit function after the Kalman
gain correction block. The limit function ensures that the rate of change of the
innovation sequence v = z - i is limited. When the rate of change of v is less than
the imposed limit, the filter functions identically to the linear first-order filter. Ho\v-
ever, when the rate of change of 11 is equal to or exceeds the limit, the changc of
the estimated output 4 must be due to a pure integration of the input signal M.
Consider the model for the first-order dynamic system in which x = position and
i = rate, and the equation of motion in statc-space form is

where w and v arc uncorrclatcd and zero means with variances q and r, respectively
An illustration of the preceding model dynamics is shown in Figure 4-8a ~vhicll
Sec. 4.6 Fllter Approach to Estimator Deslgn
Complementa~~lKalman 159

Kalman Filter

+Rate Limit
I

Complementary Filter

Low-Pass

Comparison

k, t bu, 4
Z= x t v = xl+bu1+v z = xtv. v = high frequency noise
1
U X

$U dt y = xtn, n = low frequency noise

k=fi lh
Figure 4-8' First-Order Complementary/Kalman Filter

includes the optimal state estimator. With regard to Kalman filter formulation,

and the state estimate equation is & I = u k [ z - +

- b u l l where k is the Kalman
filter gain. The estimate outputs are 2 = 2 , + bul. Substituting Equation (4-36)
into Equation (4-18) yields
A , ( s ) / ~ ( s=) l / ( s + k), X I (S)IUI
(3)
(4-35)
= - bkl(s + k), .k,(s)/Z(s) = k l ( s + k)
Therefore

The characteristics e uation is \s + k = 0.The algebraic Riccati equation is -P2/

r + q = 0 or P = &r and hence the Kalman gain is k = q r . The Kalman filter
gain k is the inverse of tkcomplementary time constant and the Kalman filter
provides more insight into the filter gain characteristics.
Case 1: 40~itiot1 bias. k
the actual measurement z from Equation (4-
33) also contains a bias error xb beside the measurement noise v , that is, z = x -
160 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

xb + v , then the first approcch in implementation is that

\
the bias error xb must be
removed by adding a ul = $ x b correction after the i~tegrationand b = k . The
second approach is to set b = 0 and treat xb as an extra input equal to Au = kx,
to be added to the input u .

Example 4-5: Estimation of center-of-gravity (CG) lateral accel.

eration. As shown in Book 1 of the'series, the inertial lateral acceleration is
measured at the IRU, which is a t a distance L , from the center of gravity (CG), as
opposed to being measured at the actual CG location. Consequently, A, measured
at the IRU contains an error due to the yaw acceleration R, that is, xb = L , R / ~ .
Hence x = AYcC and z = A ,,,"
= x - xb + v . The first approach is to set b =
k and ul = $ xb = Rt = LxRIg. The acceleration rate measurement jc = A,,, is
not available, and hence u = 0. The second approach is to set b = 0 and u = kxb
(requiring R to be available). Therefore, the first approach is selected because it is
simpler.

Example 4-6: Estimation of CG n o d a l acceleration. Similar to

the estimation of the CG lateral acceleration, from Book 1 of the series
x = Azcc, UI = J x =
~ L,QIg,
z=Azlnu=x-xh+lv, and u = O

Exampie 4-7: Turbulencelgust velocity estimator. Let z = Vl =

inertial acceleration, u l = VTAs= air data velocity, b = - k , and u = 0. Substituting
this equation into Equation (4-36) and using the definition VTAs = V, - VC yiclds
k ks k . ks sk
- Z(s) - -U , ( s ) = -v, - -VTAS= -
A

Z(s) = V c =
s+k s+k s+k s+k s+k
1
VTASand k are operated on by the filter to produce a gust rate estimate Vc. That
is, as can be seen from the preceding equation, the rate of change of the inertial
component of VTASexactly cancels V I , resulting in the production of the afore-
mentioned gust rate estimate.

Example 4-8: Turbulencelgust angle-of-attackrate estimate. Let

z = & I = inertial angle of attack rate, u , = a* = air mass angle of attack, 11 =
k , and u = 0. Substituting this equation into Equation (4-36) and using a* = ar
+ ac yields

a~ and a, are operated on by the filter to produce a turbulence/gust a rate estimate

&. The rate of change of the inertial component of a A exactly cancels the
resulting in the production of the aforementioned turbulencelgust a rate esti~nntc,
Sec 4.6 ComplementarylKalman Filter Approach to Estimator Desfgn 161

Example 4-9: Altitude rate estimator. The problem of estimating

altitude ratc is fornlulated as z = l>k = s k k , r r l = All + I/c;ycsls = hls, rr = 0,
and b = k. Applying Equation (4-36) yiclds

This equation verifies that the problem formulation is corrcct. If thcrc cxists an
acceleration bias A h in z , then z = hlk + Alak = 1;ik + sAj11k. Substituting the
new z into Equation (4-36) yiclds

As mentioned previously, the acceleration bias Al;?k can be implemented in the

position bias term by adding A hlk to u r as ul = hls + A hlk. Substituting thc new
u l into Equation (4-36) also yields Equation (4-38). This verifies that an alternative
implementation can be done.

Case 2: Rate bias, b = 1. If the rate input contains a bias error jCb, that
is, u = j: + i b , then the rate bias error jCb can be removed by a position correction
input u l = xh after the integrator as in the position bias case. Since the rate input
u has a unit forward loop gain, u l should also have a unit forward loop gain, that
is, b = 1.

Example 4-10: Mrst-ordera estimator using inertial a rate at IRU.

In this case, the C G normal acceleration estimate is not used in the inertial a rate
computation, and the problem is formulated as follows: x = a = angle of attack,
z = x + v = a~ = a1 + a~ = measured or derived air mass a, a r = inertial a,
X D = ac = turbulencelgust a, and u = &I,,L, = inertial a rate at IRU. Also,
aIIRU contains an error due to pitch acceleration, Q, from the inertial a rate at the
actual C G location iurC,, as discussed in Book 1 of the series. The correct terms are
&rcc = + dlb and & b = LxQ/LTAs One way to obtain arc, information at
the CG would be to add the error term & b to iYI, , and then integrate the sum of
these two terms. Unfortunately, Q, and hence & b , are not available. A better scheme
is to integrate &I,R,, and then add a pitch rate correction term u1 = a b = L,QI
VrAS with b = 1 after the integrator to obtain accurate arcG.

Example 4-11: First-order sideslip estimator using inertial side-

slip rate at IRU. The problem is formulated the same manner as in Example
4-10 as follows: x = P '= sideslip, z = x + v = PA = PI + PC = measured or
derived air mass P, pr = inertial P, x~ = PC = turbulence/gust P, u = pl,,, =
inertial sideslip rate at IRU, U I = P b = LxRIVTAs, and b = 1.

Case 3: NO bias, b = 01. In this case, b = 0. Hence, u l = 0 and the

estimate is 2 = u + k(z - 2 ) . If there exists a disturbance x D in the x measurement,
162 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

+
then z ( t ) = x ( t ) x D ( t ) and the rate input is u = i.hn the Laplace domain, Ul(s)
= 0, U ( s ) = s X ( s ) , and Z(s) = X ( s ) +I X D ( S ) .Substituting the preceding result
into Equation (4-36),

Example 4-12: Rate estimator. The problem is formulated such that

x = x = rate, z = x + v = measured/der,ived X , u = ji = measuredlderived x,
ul = 0, and 6 = 0. The estimate equation is k ( t ) = ~ ( t +) k ( X ( t ) - ~ ( t ) )Applying
.
Equation (4-36), ~ ( s )= [ X ( s ) + k ~ ( s ) ] l (+s k ) = ~ ( s )This
. verifies that the
formulation is correct. The first-order altitude rate estimator in Example 4-1 can
be solved by this formulation with x = h , and x = ha. The estimate equation is
the same as in Example 4-1.

Example 4-13: First-order a estimator using inertial a rate at CG.

Following Example 4-10, if the CG normal acceleration estimator is used in the
inertial a rate computation, then b = 0, 1 4 1 = 0, and ir = &I,, = inertial rate at
CG. Here, & tracks mainly the air mass a.4 a t low frequencies so that the comple-
mentary a rate A & = k ( a A - &) is zero a t low frequencies. Applying Equation
(4-39) yields &(s) = a l ( s ) + k a c ( s ) l ( s + k ) . Thus, a~ and &I,, are operated on
the filter to produce an a that contains pure c r l plus filtered &c.

Example 4-lk First-order sideslip estimator using inertial side.

slip rate at CG. Following Example 4-1 1, if the C G lateral acceleration csti-
mator is used in the inertial sidesiip rate computation, then 6 = 0, i d l = 0, and
PI,, = inertial sideslip rate at CG. fi tracks mainly the air mass sideslip P A a t low
frequencies so that complcn~entarysideslip rate A @ = k ( P A - p)
is zero a t low
frequency. Applying Equation (4-39) yields fi(s) = Pl(s) + kPc(s)l(s + k ) . Thus
P A and OI,, are operated on the filter to produce a fi that contains pure inertial
sideslip P I plus filtered fit.

Example 4-15: First-order velocity estimator. Thc problem is for-

mulated as follows:
x = I~T.AS = air data vclocity, x ~ = Vc = turbulence/gust vclocity
2 = x + v = V I - V c = air data velocity measurement, V I = inertial velocity

u = V I = inertial acceleration, ul = 0

) c l ( s ) - K V C ( S ) I ( Sf k ) . Thus, V r ~ s
Applying Equation (4-39) yields ~ T A S ( S =
and 01are operated on the filter to produce a velocity estimate 6 ' ~ that ~ s contains
pure V I plus filtered 6 ' ~ .
Sec. 4.6 ComplementarylKalman Nlter Approach to Estimator Design la3

Example 4-16: First-order altitude estimator. The problc~nis for-

mulated as follows:
x = It = altitudc, u = /I = altitude ratc via INS and FCS
z = ItR = x + v = barometric altitudc, 11, = 0
The resulting altitude estimator is = it + k(k - I;). The altitudc estimate is very
important in INS and FCS altitudc tracking.

Example 4-17: First-order Euler attitude estimator. The problem

is formulated as follows:
x = 4 = attitude, tr = r/r = attitude ratc transformed from body rate
z = IJJ, = INS attitude, rr, = 0
The resulting Euler attitude estimator is shown in Figure 4-9.

4.6.2 Second-Order ComplementarylKalman Filter

Figure 4-10 shows a generalized second-order complcmentarytKalman filter. Con-

sider the model for the second-order dynamic system. Applications for this filter
can be classified into three major categories:

(Formtrlntiorr 1) Position and Rate Estimators with Position and Acceleration

Measurements: Given measuredlderived position x and measuredtderived ac-
celeration 2 , it is desired to obtain the best estimate of the position and rate.
(Forrrrrrlntion 2) Position and Rate Estimators with Position and Rate Mea-
surements: Given measuredlderived position x and measuredlderived velocity
k, it is desired to obtain the best estimate of the position and rate.
(Formulation 3) Position and Rate Estimators with Rate and Acceleration Mea-
surements: Given rneasuredlderived rate k and measuredtderived acceleration
x, it is desired to obtain the best estimate of the position and rate.

Second-order complementarylKalman filter: formulation 1. This

formulation is used to design position and rate estimators with position and accel-

Roll Rate
Pitch Rate
Yaw Rate
- Body to
Euler Axis
Transformation

Figure 4-9 Euler Attitude Estimator

 164 Modern Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. 4

Kalman a l t e r

L.
Complementary Filter
High Pass

z
4 =Fl
-nT n-v

s*
Low Pass

+ 2 j wn s +a);;
G(s) Low Pass
Comparison

el + bu2 L
z = r + v = n l + b%+v z = s+v. v = high frequency noise

JJu &dl + Jul d y = x+n, n = low frequency noise

- -

k/kI 2j!w,, - T = complementary filter time constant

Figure 4-10 Second-Order ComplementaryiKalman Filter

eration measurements. Consider the model for the second-order dynamics system
in which x l = x = position, xz = i = rate, and 14 = x = acceleration. T h e equation
o f motion in state-space form is i l ( t ) = ~ ~ ( and 1 ) i , ( t ) = . ( I ) , with position x as
an output, and z ( t ) = x, ( I ) . If the acceleration measurement ii contains a bias crror
A x , that is, ii = x + A x , then the acceleration bias error A x can be removed by a
rate correction input u l = A i after the rate integrator so that i l ( t ) = x 2 ( t ) + I I I ( ~ )
+ w l ( t ) where w l is a zero-mean white process with variance q l . ril can be a rate
correction equal to the rate difference between the actual rate measurement and the
sensor rate measurement. The measured/derived acceleration ji is treated as a control
input u with known noise characteristics such that i 2 ( 1 ) = U ( I ) +
w Z ( t ) ,wherc w z
Sec. 4.6 ComplementaryIKaiman Filter Approach to Estimator Deslgn 165

is a zero-mean white process with variance q 2 . The preceding model dynamics are
illustrated in Figure 4 - 1 0 which includes the optimal state estimator. A comparison
of a second-order complementary filter and Kalman filter is also shown in the figure.
As in the first-order filtcr formulation, the measured/dcrived position x is treated
as a measurement z with bias error bu2 and a measurement noise v , and z = xl +
bir? + v , where v is a zero-mean white process with variance r. With regard to
Kalman filter formulation,

where K is the Kalman gain matrix, and the state estimate equations are
il(t) = + u l ( t ) + k [ z ( t ) - i l ( t ) - bu2(t)]
22(t) (4-40)
i2(t) = ~ ( t+
) k I [ z ( t ) - . t l ( t ) - 6112(t)]

where i = .? = .GI + bit2 = position estimate, .t2(()= rate estimate, and i ( t ) =

.??(I) + irl(t) = calibrated rate. Applying Equation ( 4 - 1 8 ) yields

where gains k and k l have been expressed in terms of the second-order parameters.
Therefore,
i(s) = 2(s) = kl(s) + bU2(s) (4-42a)
= [U(S)+ s U ~ ( S +) b s 2 U r ( s ) + ( k s + k J z ( s ) ] l D ( ~ )
k ( s ) = k2(s) + UI(S) (4-42b)
= [(s + k ) U ( s ) + (s2 + k s ) U l ( s ) - bkIsU2(s) + s k I Z ( s ) ] l D ( ~ )
All the transfer functions from either the control inputs u , u l , and 242, or the mea-
surement z to the state estimates are low-pass filters. The estimator gains k and kr
166 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

can be related to the estimator poles sl and s2 by the following formulae:

The location of the estimator poles sl and s2 are chosen based on applications and
are different for different applications. The transfer functions from the measured
z ( t ) t o k and 4 are simply the last column of Equation (4-41a),

k ( s ) = (ks + kl)Z(s)lD(s), ~ ( s =) klsZ(s)lD(s) (4-44)

The steady-state values for the elements of P, and K , are found to be

L
Case (a). If ql = q2 = 0, then in the steady state the elements of the error
covariance matrices all vanish, that is, P, -+ 0, and the Kalman filter gain vanishes.
Since the perfect model and the filter need only to find the missing initial condition
of the state, the processing being observed is nonstationary and the estimate con-
verges on the true value of the states which is purely the double integral of the illput
U.

Case ( b ) . If q, = 0, qz # 0, then in the steady state

k = ~ ' Z ( ~ ~ l r ) ' / k1
~ ,= (4-46)
k
Using Equation (4-41 b), w,, = 6= (q2/r)114and 5 = -
2%
- 0.707. Thus, the
damping ratio is a constant and the undamped natural frequency is determined to
be a function of only the ratio of errorlnoise in the rneasuredlderived acceleration
x to the measuredlderived position x . Furthermore, w,, depends only on the relative
noise between q2 and r, not on the absolute noise levels.
Case (c). If q 2 = 0 and ql # 0, then in the steady state k = and kl
= 0. From Equations (4-40) k1 = i 2+ U , + k [ -~ 2 , - bu2] and i2= u. Since
qz = 0, a perfect accelerometer model is used and the filter needs only to find the
missing initial condition on the rate state, the process being observed is nonsta-
tionary, and the rate converges on the true value of the rate states that are
Sec. 4.6 Complementaryllblman Filter Approach to Btlmator Deslgn 167

the integral of the accelerometer input. The position estimate is the first-order com-
pletnentary/Kaltria~~
filter position estitr~ate.
If the Kalman gain K is assumed zero where the forcing function in the filter
design is not considered, the covariance equations (4-23) are employed here with
K = 0 since they hold for an arbitrary equation K-matrix.

The error covariance will grow according to Equation (4-47) cvcn if there is only
a small amount of white noise of spectral dcnsity q l forcing the .ul state or a small
amount of white noise of spectral dcnsity q- forcing the xz state.

Example 4-18: Navigation filtering for position and velocity es-

timate. The navigation filtering for position and velocity estimate presented in
Chapter 7 falls cxactly into the previous category, with the following definitions:
x = X, Y, Z position; z = X, Y, Z position measurements;
i= A, Y , z velocity
I! = X , V , z acceleration;
til = A X , A Y , A Z velocity corrcction; u2 = 0
Following Example 4-1 and defining x l = h = altitude and x2 = h = altitude
rate, this example can then be applied to the design of an altitude and altitude rate
estiftlator where z = ha.. = h + v = X I + v = Z vosition .. measurements. The
+
acceleration bias error sail is assumed to exist so that h = I;, s h h + w = u +
j t r l + w , and the state equation is obtained as $1 = x? + ul and i z = u + w.

Thus, this is the same problem as that in Case (a) wherein q l = 0. q, = q, and r
= r. The Kalman gain is given by Equation ( 4 - 4 3 , and the state estimate eqyations
A

are given by Equation (4-40) where i = i1 = h = altitude estimate and h = 22

= altitude rate estimate. The calibrated altitude rate estimate is h , = 22 + u l . The

-
transfer function from z ( t ) = h R ( t ) to h^ is h^lhR = ( k s + (a
k,)lD(s) =
+ V & ) l ( s 2 + V'2Vqlr s + d&)and it is a low-pass filter. In the Laplace domain,
s

from Equation (4-42) the altitude estimate and the altitude rate estimate in terms
+
of u = hlRS, u 1 = A h , and z = h are h^(s) = ( U ( s ) + s U l ( s ) f (o: 2<w,s)Z(s)]/
+
D ( s ) = [ h ( s ) s h h ( s ) + (w: + 2<w,,s)h(s)]lD(s)and i(j) = [ ( s + 2<w,,)h(s) +
(s2 + ~ < w , , s ) A / L (+x )SW: h ( s ) ] / D ( s ) The
. problem of estimating gear altitude and
altitude rate is formulated as follows:
x = gear altitude, z = gear altitude measurement,
u = inertial altitude acceleration measurement,
u l = inertial altitude rate correction, u2 = 0

Example 4-19: Position error and rate error estimator with PO-
sition error and acceleration measurements. Trajectory errors in terms
168 Modem ~iiteringand Estimation Techniques Chap. 4

of position error and rate error are important parameters for NGC and hence need
to be estimated. The problem of estimating trajectory error is formulated as follows:
x = AX = trajectory position error,
z = x +v = trajectory position error measurement
u = x = accelerometer measurement
ul = A X = trajectory rate correction

Applying EAquation(4-42) yields A ~ ( S )= [ ~ ( s +) SAX(S) + (ks + kl)AX(s)]/

D(s) and AX(^) = [(s + k ) ~ ( s + +
) (s2 ks) AX(S)+ sk~AX(s)]/D(s).In estimating
the glideslope deviation, the problem is formulated as AX = A h = altitude error,
A X = ~h = altitude rate error, and x = h = vertical acceleration. In estimating
the localizer deviation, the problem is formulated as AX = A y = lateral position
error, A X = A j = lateral velocity error, and x = j = lateral acceleration.

Second-order complementaryIKalman filter: Formulation 2. This

formulation is used to design position and rate estimators with position and rate
measurements. The following are defined:
x = position (same as before), z = x +v = measured position
u(t) = Ax(t) = acceleration bias error (if it exists) instead of x in Formulation
1
ul(t) = i ( t ) = rate measurement (regarded as a control input) instead of A i
in Formulation 1
xl(r) = position (same as before), x2(t) = A i = rate measurcment
disturbance instead of i in Formulation 1
2 , ( t ) = position estimate (same as before), .G2(t) = rate measurement dis-
turbance estimate
i(t) = ?(t) = + bu*(t) = position estimate (same as before)
i(t) = i2(t) + u l ( f ) = rate estimate (same as before)
The state and measurcment equations are the same as those in Formulation 1 , that
is, i 1 = x2 + U I + U ' , . i 2 = u + ul2, and z = x, buz + +
o. The results of the
second-order filter (Formulation 1) can all be applied here with a slight revision as
follows. If there exists a disturbance X D in the x measurement, then z(t) = >-(I) +
. the Laplace domain, U(s) = 0, Ul(s) = sX(s), and Z(s) = X(s) + X D ( ~ ) .
x ~ ( t )In
Applying Equation (4-42) yields
Sec. 4.6 CompiernentaryIKalman Niter Approech to Estimator Design 169

Thus, z ( r ) and r r , ( 1 ) arc operated on by the filter to produce: ( 1 ) a position estimate

; (2) a rate estimate
i ( t ) that consists of pure position .u(t) and a filtcrcd i I > ( t )arid
; ( I ) that consists of a pure ratc i ( r ) and a filtered io(r).
The preceding results assume
the acceleration bias rr = A x to be zero. If it is nonzero, then a third state needs to
be modeled. Therefore, a third-order complcmcntaryIKaln~anfilter such as the one
presented in Section 4.6.3 is required.

Example 4-20: Second-order a estimator. This example follows the

first-order a estimator problem formulation in Example 4-10.
Case 1: Using inertial a rate at ZRU. In this case, u l = k = &I = &, =
inertial a ratc at IRU, b = 1, and u = 0. A means of removing offsets in the
accelerometer used to compute the inertial a rate is to bias the inertial a rate by the
integral of the error between a.+and ti. This also removes computational errors.
As in Example 4-10, a better scheme of correcting ah is to integrate &I,,,, and then
add a pitch rate correction u 2 = a b = L,Ql VTAS after the position integrator (see
Figure 4-10) to obtain an accurate a at C G information. The estimates are given
bv & = i t + 6rr2 and & = .?? + 1 4 , . Note that & has the same formulation as that
i n the first-order estimator, while & is not provided by the first-order estimator but
is provided here by this second-order estimator.
Case 2: Using inertial a rate at C G . In this case, u l = jr = Cul = &I,, =
inertial a ratc at C G , 6 = 0, tr = 0, and 1.12 = 0.The solution of this case is simpler
than that in previous Case I . Applying Equation (4-48) yields
& ( s ) = ads) + (ks + kl)ac(s)/D(s), &(s) = &l,,(s) + klsaG(s)lD(s)
Thus, a.4 and &l,:,; are operated on by the filter to produce: (1) an & that consists
s

of a pure a 1and a filtered tic; and (2) an & that consists of a pure &I,, and a filtered
kc.
Example 4-21: Second-order sideslip estimator. This example fol-
lows the first-order sideslip estimator problem formulation in Example 4-11.
Case 1: Using inertial sideslip rate at IRU. In this case, U I = 2 = PI,,, =
inertial sideslip rate a t IRU, b = 1 , u = 0 , and u2 = Pb 7 LxRIVTAS.The state
estimate is given by = 2 1 + bu2 = sideslip estimate and P = i2 ul = sideslip
p +
rate estimate. *Note that p for the same formulation as that in the first-order esti-
mator, while 6 is not provided by the first-order estimator but is provided here by
this second-order estimator.
Case 2: Using inertial sideslip rate of C G . In this case, u l = jr = P I =
Dl,, = inertial p rate at CG, b = 0, u = -0, and u 2 = 0. The solution of this case
is simpler than that ip previous Case 1. The state estimates are now P = 21 =
sideslip estimate and 6 = 322 +
u1 = sideslip rate estimate. Applying Equation (4-
40) yields
fi = ?2 + 0lcC + k(PA -~fi), i 2 = k l ( P ~- Cj)
170 Modem Filtering and Estimatton Techniques Chap. g

Applying Equations (4-42) and using @I($) = s P ~ ( s and

) PA(s) = PI(s) + PC(S)
yield
= [X@I(~)+ ( k s + k r ) P ~ ( s ) ] f D ( =s ) PI(^) + (ks + k ~ ) P c ( s ) l D ( s )
b ( 3 ) = [(s2 + k s ) b ~ ( s +
) sk~P~(s)]lD= ( s )b l ( s ) + k ~ s P c ( s ) l D ( s )
Applying Equations (4-48) also yields the same equation. Thus, P A and PI,, are
oppated on to produce: (1) a fi that consists qf pure P I and a filtered fiG; and (2)
a 3( that consists of a pure @I,, and a filtered bc.

4.6.3 Third-Order Complementary/Kalman Filter

Figure 4-11 shows a generalized third-order complementary/Kalman filter.

Third-order complementary/Kalman filter: Formulation 1. Con-

sider the model for the third-order dynamic system in which x = position, i =

U 4

a) Formulation 1

U
-
,A

Wi3
b) Formulation 2
Figure 4-11 Third-Order Complementary/Kalrnan Filter
Sec. 4.6 Comp(ementarylKa1manNlter Approach to Estimator Design 171

rate, and x = acceleration, and the equations of motion in state-space form are as
follows:
XI = X? + 111 + LVI, E \ W I ( ~ )=
] 0. )] -
E [ I v ~ ( ~ ) w ~ =( Tqlb(t T)

where x = s l + 6 1 1 2 ,i = x 2 + l r l , and .t = x.3 + rr, and the measurement equation

is

The preceding model dynamics are illustrated in Figure 4-lla which includes the
optimal state estimator. With regard to Kalman filter formulation,

where K is the Kalman gain matrix, and the state estimate equations are

r
+ b112, x = i 2 + U I , and x = 23+,,.
A

and the estimator outputs are i = 2 = it

The solution of the second-order filters is identical to that of the third-order filter
presented in this section, with the exception of k, being set to zero. This results in
the elimination of the last state x 3 in the third-order filter. The transfer function
from the control inputs u ( t ) , i r l ( t ) , and u 2 ( t ) , and the measurements z ( t )to the state
-
estimate vector ~ ( t are
)
 Modem Nlterlng and Estimation Techniques Chap. q

where d ( s ) = O is the characteristic equation. Therefore,

Z(S) = A($)= kl(s)+ bU2(s) = [sU(s) + s 2 U l ( s )
+ bs3U2(s) + (ks2 + kls + k l ) Z ( s ) ] l d ( s )

The transfer functions from z ( t ) to ~ ( trepresent

) the last column of Equation (4-
51) as

As shown in Equation (4-52), all the transfer functions from either the control inputs
u, u l , and u2. or the measurement z , to the state estimates and the estimator outputs,
are low-pass filters. The algebraic Riccati equation is

and the steady-state Kalman gain is

Case 1. In this case, 43 = O, q l # 0, and q2 # 0, and Equation (4-55) with

kl = O has been found to be the same as the second-order filter gain Equation (4-
45). Therefore, when q3 = 0, that is, the process noise intensity on the third-state
is zero, the second-order filters employed in Section 4.6.2 are identical to the third-
order filter presented.

Case 2. In this case, ql = 0, q2 = 0, q3 # 0, and Equation (4-55) has been

found to be
k = 2(q3/r)I1", kl = 2(q3/r)'I3, k l = (q3/r)1'2 (4-56)
Sec. 4.6 ComplementaryIKaImanFilter Approach to Estimator Design 173.

Case 3. If there exists a disturbance x n in the x measurement, then r = x

+ XI,. If ~ c ( t )= 0, u l ( t ) = jc = rate, and u2(t) = 0, then in the Laplace domain,
U ( s ) = 0, U l ( s ) = s X ( s ) , and Z ( s ) = X ( s ) +
X D ( S ) .Applying Equation (4-52)
yields
?(s) = X ( s ) + (ks2 + k r s + k l ) X n ( s ) l d ( s ) ,
A

X(S) = X(S) + (kls2 + k l s ) X ~ ( s ) l d ( s ) (4-57)

X(5) = X(S) + kls2X~(s)/d(s)
By setting k , = 0, Equation (4-37) is reduced to the second-order filter Equation
(4-48).
If a gain h is added to the measurement input, then z' = h r = h x ,
Case 4.
+ hbuz + hv and v' = hv is the new measurement noise with zero mean and variance
r' = h2r. The new state estimate equations and Kalman gains are
21 = 22 + 141 + k ' ( ~ -' h.?] - hbL42)

j3= k ; ( z ' - hG1 - hbuz), k' = klh, k ; = krllt, ki = kllh

The error covariance P is the same as that in the previous formulation except that
r is replaced by r'lhZ.

Example 4-22: Trajectoly estimation. In a three-dimensional flight,

the trajectory estimation problem involves finding the best estimate of position,
velocity, and acceleration in the X , Y, Z inertial coordinates, given the position,
velocity, andlor acceleration measurements. The problem is defined by
x = X , Y , Z position, u = X, Y , z acceleration
z = X, Y, Z position measurement, ul = AX, AY, A Z velocity correction
2 = X, Y, z velocity, u2 = AX, A Y , A Z position correction
Note that the problem formulation is similar to the navigation filtering for position
and velocity estimate presented in Example 4-18. However, uz is nonzero here and
the acceleration estimates are provided as the estimator outputs which were not
available in that section. In some cases, X, Y , Z acceleration measurements may
not be available and hence need to be estimated. Then, u = AX, A Y , A Z acceleration
correction and x j = unknown acceleration to be estimated. In altitude, altitude rate,
and altitude acceleration estimator design, the problem is formulated as
x = h = altitude
z = x + v = XI + bu2 = altitude.measurement
u = h = altitude acceleration
 Modem Filtering and Estimation Techniques Chap. 4

ul = ~ h = altitude rate correction

u2 = A h = altitude correction
Terminal guidance tracking filter (presented in Chapter 7) is another example of the
trajectory estimation problem discussed in this section.

Third-order wmplementary1Kalman filter: Formulation 2. The

problem is defined the same way as in the third-order complementary/Kalman filter
(Formulation I), except x 3 here is assumed to be filtered white noise, that is, the
state Equations (4-49a) now become

and the state estimate equations are

i1= 22 + u1 + k(z - 21 - bu2)

43 = -2317 + k l ( z - 21 - bu2)
Applying Equation (4-la),

Equations (4-61) are solved nun~ericallyfor P ( t ) to generate gains k, kl, and k ~ ,

which mechanize the third-order filter depicted in Figure 4-11b. The steady-state
Kalman gain is
k = Plllr, k, = P12/r, k, = P l J r (4-62)
If a gain h is added to the nIcasurcment input, then z' = Irz = h x l + I~brrz + Ifv
and v ' = hv is the new measurement with zero mean and variance r' = h'r. The
new state estimate equations and Kalman filter gains are
Sec. 4.6 ComplementaryIKalman Filter Approach to Estimator Deslgn 175

The error covariance P i s the same as that in the previous case except that r is replaced
by r'lh2. Assuming measurement noise v in Equation (4-49b) to be a colored noite,
then following Equations (4-28) to (4-31) yields the new measurement equations
z = x +
v, ir = F v + +
~ H HA - FH = [ - F , 1,0], E [ f i ( t ) ~ ( ~=) ~ ]
G v l , =
+
[ H N Q N T H T GrGT]6(t - 7 ) = r,S(t - 7), andS(t) = Q ( I ) N ( ~ ) ~ HApplying
(~)~.
Equations (4-31) yields the new equations for state estimates, covariance matrix,
and Kalman filter gain matrix. If F and C are scalar parameters, then Equations (4-
31) yield the following simple form of new covariance and Kalman gain equations:

-~ J ' I-I - 2P12 + q l - kfr,, -PI-2 - P22 + PI3 - k,krcr,

dt dr
 Inertial Navigation'
The block diagram of Figure 5-1 is provided to illustrate how the different parts
o f the subject matter presented in this chapter are related t o one another. For instance,
the discussions of common requirements, navigation con~putation,and coordinate
systems together form the framework for the design of a self-contained INS. The
t w o types o f self-contained INS are the gimballed INS and the strapdown INS.
Following discussions of each of these two types o f INS, a comparison o f the two
is presented. Combining INS with other navigation aids introduces the subject of
filtering, and finally extending INS uses to provide flight control outputs leads to
an integrated INS dcsign.

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Inertial navigation is thc process of measuring accclcration onboard a vchiclr 2nd

then integrating that accclcration to dctcrminc the vehicle's vclocity and position
relative to a known starting point. Accclcrotnctcrs arc uscd to sense thc magnitude
of thc accclcration, but acceleration is a vector quantity having direction as wcll as

'This chapter has becn technically cditcd and improvcd by I l r . J. Stanley Ausrnan of Litton
Guidance and Control Systcms.

176
Sec 5.1 lntroductlon

Common Requiremenu

Coordinate Systems Self-contained INS Navigation Computation

(Sec. 5.3) (Secs. 5.4 & 5.5) (Sec. 5.3)

Comparison of
Gimballed INS &
Strapdown INS
I I (Sec. 5.6)

External Navigation Aids

(Sec. 5.7)
Figure 5-1 Inertial Navigation

magnitude. For this reason a set ofgyroscopes, or simply gyros, are used to maintain
the accelerometers in a known orientation with respect to a fixed, nonrotating co-
ordinate system, commonly referred to as inertial space.
This does not mean that the accelerometers themselves are kept parallel to the
axes of this nonrotating coordinate system, although some systems are mechanized
this way. Instead, the accelerometers may be kept parallel to a set of earth fixed
axes by causing the gyroscopes to precess at earth rate. O r they may be maintained
locally level by precessing the gyros at earth rate plus the angular rate of the vehicle
over the earth. In most of the modern aircraft inertial navigation systems today, the
gyros are precessed to rotate with the aircraft itself, resulting in what is known as
the strapdown system.
One characteristic inherent in accelerometers is that they do not measure grav-
itational acceleration. For example, an accelerometer in free fall will measure zero
acceleration (0 g), but it is really accelerating downward at the acceleration of gravity.
For another case in point, consider an accelerometer sitting on a stationary table. It
will measure 1 g due to the gravitational reaction force of the table pushing upward
on the accelerometer, but the accelerometer is not really going anywhere, at least
with respect to the earth.
In order to overcome this deficiency of accelerometers, it is necessary to add
in the effect of gravity based on a gravity model. A computer uses this model to
calculate gravity as a function of position, which in turn is determined from the
double integration of the measured acceleration. The most common gravity model
employed is one which accounts for both the latitudinal and altitudinal variations
in gravity. This model is symmetric about the earth's polar axis and also about the
equator. For most navigational purposes, this ellipsoidal model is sufficient, but
highly accurate systems must in addition account for gravity anomalies which are
deviations from this simpler model.
178 Inertlal Haulgation Chap. 5

It is difficult to navigate a flight vehicle at night or in bad weather, even with

the availability of radio and radar navigational aids. Similarly, smaller, faster, more
maneuverable surface vehicles armed with guided missiles, torpedos, and cannons
meet with the same difficulty. Consequently, the tremendous need for improved
navigation gave rise to the necessity for onboard systems that would supply the
position, velocity, and attitude of the vehicle on which they are mounted.
The first inertial navigation systems (INS) in operation were those in the Ger-
man V-2 rockets of World War 11. Since then, INS have become standard equipment
in ballistic missiles and in all modern fighter aircraft, airliners, and naval ships. what
makes INS particularly suitable for ballistic missile guidance is their autonomous
mode of operation during the boost phase. This feature yields a jam-proof guidance
system [Bar-Itzhack and Berman, 19881.
Much of the progress in the design and use of inertial systems can be traced
to the strategic missile programs of the 1950s and, specifically, to the work done
at the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory (currently the Draper Laboratory). It was
during this time that the need for high accuracy at ranges exceeding 1,000 k m using
autonomous systems became more and more apparent. As a result, the U.S. Air
Force requested the laboratory to develop inertial systems for the Thor and Titan
missiles, while the U.S. Navy requested the same laboratory to develop an inertial
system for the Polaris missile. The practicability of a self-contained all-inertial nav-
igation system (INS) for aircraft had just been demonstrated by the laboratory in a
series of flight tests using a system known as Spire [Draper, 19811. With the MIT
Instrumentation Lab providing the spark, several privately-owned companies took
up the challenge and developed and produced their own INS for long-range cruise
missiles (North American Aviation for the Navaho missile and Northrop Aircraft
for the Snark missile), for strategic bombers (Sperry Gyro Corp. for the B-38), and
for ballistic missiles (GE for Polaris and American Bosch Arnla for the ATLAS
missile). The remarkable succcss of those early missile and aircraft programs paved
the way for applications in aircraft, ships, missiles, and spacecraft. Today, inertial
systems are standard equipment in both commercial and military applications.
The types of gyros currently found in inertial navigation systems (INS) include
the floated rate integrating gyro, the electrostatically supported gyro (ESG), the
tuned rotor gyro (TRG), and the ring laser gyro (RLG). The first three are me-
chanical in nature, relying on a spinning mass to produce a large angular momentum
which tends to stay fixcd in inertial space. The floated and tuned rotor gyro suspend
the spinning mass in mechanical gimbals, while the ESG suspends the spinning
mass, generally a spinning ball, with electrostatic forces so as to prevent any mc-
chanical contact between the spinning ball and the outside case [Schmidt, 19871.
The RLG is a closed optical cavity containing two beams of single-frequency
light traveling in opposite directions around the closed cavity. The two beams in-
terfere with one another to form a standing wave pattern around the cavity. This
pattern of bright and dark spots tends to stay fixed in inertial space, so that an
observer or light detector fixcd to the cavity can sense rotation of the cavity as he
(or it) rotates relative to this fixed pattern. A more complete dcscription of the four
types of gyros listed earlier, together with accelerometers and error models for each
can be found in Savage 11978, 1984(a)].
Inertial navigation systems are either gimballed or strapdown. In a gimballed
system the gyros and accelerometers are isolated from the rotations of the vehicle
so that they can be maintained in a specific orientation relative to the earth or inertial
space. This greatly simplifies the computations of velocity and position and also
greatly reduces the requirements on the gyros which would otherwise have to mea-
sure very high angular rates. In a strapdown INS the gyros measure the full rotation
rates of the aircraft and keep trace of the instantaneous orientation of the acceler-
ometers in order to properly integrate the accelerations into velocity and position.
I t was the advent of small, high-speed digital computers that made strapdown INS
possible.
In general, the three basic functions of an INS are sensing, computing, and
outputting. The accelerometers and gyros perform the sensing function and send
their measurements of acceleration and angle rate to the computer. T h e computer
uses these data to generate velocity, position, attitude, attitude rate, heading, alti-
tude, range and bearing to destination. If true air speed is available from an air data
system, the INS can also compute wind speed and direction as xvell as drift angle.
The outputting function simply means sending the appropriate data to thc flight
control system, fire control system, reconnaissance sensors, or the control and dis-
play unit (CDU) as required for the particular mission.
Accordingly, the significance of the navigation system to the flight mission
becomes obvious, as the former provides dynamic parameters for flight and path
control, assists in terrain-following flight, allows avoidance of enemy defenses via
corridor flight, and reduces operator load. The ability of a navigation system to
accomplish these tasks greatly enhances mission success. Particularly desirable fea-
tures in a navigation system include: self-containment; security; worldwide capa-
bility; bounded navigation errors for position, speed, attitude and heading; no at-
titude, weather, or terrain limitations; minimum airframe structural impact;
minimum size, weight, power, and cost; and high availability.
If aided by other external navigation devices, the INS is called an aided INS.
The so-called external navigation devices can be position aids or velocity aids. The
former consists of GPS, MLS, MLS-GPS, LORAN, OMEGA, T A C A N and ba-
rometer (see the following for definition). The latter consists of Doppler, odometer,
and laser velocity meter. The following list covers several important navigation
devices and the corresponding section in which each one is covered in some detail:
global positioning system (GPS), Section 5.7.2; tactical air navigation (TACAN),
Section 5.7.3; long-range navigation (LORAN), Section 5.7.4; terrain contour
matching (TERCOM), Section 5.7.5; Doppler radar, Section 5.7.6; and star trackers,
Section 5.7.7.
An aided INS composed of the INS and external navigation devices is depicted
in Figure 5-2a. The evolution of these flight vehicle navigation devices is given in
Figure 5-2b. It is seen that a GPS is the most up-to-date navigation device, offering
the highest accuracy for flight vehicle navigation. The operational characteristics of
180 Inertial Nauigation Chap. 5

1950 1960 1970 198)

INERTIAUDOPPLER

1 MILE ABSOLUTE
 Sec. 5.2 Common Requirements for lnertlal Navigators 181

CHARACTERISTIC

L REOUlRES REMOTE COOPERATING TRANSMIllER 8. ANTENNA LOCATION I S IMPORTAN1

2. POLAR REGION LIMITATIONS 9. TIME FRAME DfPENMNT - POST 198)
3. HEAVILY SMOOTHED SPEED I S AVAllABLE 10. DOPPLER SUBJECT TO D m C l l O N
4 WIND VELOCITY VECTOR REQUIED 11 STORMS AND SUN SPOT ACTIVITY
5. CERTAIN WEATHR LIMITATIONS U. MANEWERS M G R A M ACCURACY
6 LIFE OF S I C H I LIMITED U. ACCURACY LIMITED TO MAG COMPASS
7. LIMITED OVER WATER AND HOMOGENEOUS LAND I.E. DESERT
(C)
Figure 5-2 (a) Navigation Parameters Available from Sensors (b) Navigation Technology
Evaluation (c) Operational Characteristics of Navigation Sensors ( F r o ~ n[.21izrri11, 19861 w i t h
pennissio~zfrom Litton)

these navigation devices are given in Figure 5-2c. Generally speaking, the accuracy
required of a navigation system for most applications is on the order of 1 nautical
mph of flight. More stringency may be placed on the required accuracy in certain
phases of flight, such as ground attack for example, in which the accuracy must be
in the neighborhood of a few meters. In these cases, an external reference is necessary
to update the INS in order to achieve the required accuracy.

5.2 COMMON REQUIREMENTS FOR INERTIAL NAVIGATORS

Vehicle and weapon systems. The requirements of a navigation system

for weapon systems can be categorized as follows. In the case of piloted vehicles,
medium accuracy (1 nautical mph) is mainly what is required of the navigation
182 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

system for tactical aircraft, whereas landfall position fix, velocity, and nuclear hard-
ness are all required of the navigation system for long-range strategic bombers.
Furthermore, low accuracy or simple attitude reference is the basic navigation re-
quirement for observation aircrafts, while size and weight are critical t o helicopteri.
In the case of short-range missiles and tanks, size, weight, and low cost figure
predominantly in the requirements, whereas medium-range missiles require some-
what better navigation. Reliability is a key requirement for intercontinental ballistic
missiles and tanks. Submarines and ships require extremely high accuracy over long
time periods. For military use, the ideal navigation system should be fully auton-
omous, undetectable, unjammable, usable worldwide in all weathers, and of van-
ishingly low weight and infinitesimal cost. These aims have driven development
for the past thirty years. Systems are now sufficiently reliable and accurate for
virtually all modern fixed-wing military aircraft to be equipped with an inertial
navigator [Barnes, 19871.

Navigation requirements for weapon delivery. Navigation accuracy

is a key factor for successfully carrying out low-level attacks against targets at known
locations. First, it gets the attacking aircraft to the right position to find the target.
Once the target is identified, the INS must provide an attitude reference for the
targeting sensors (optical sight, laser range finder, radar, IR sensor, or TV sight).
After the target position is located with respect to the aircraft, that position is con-
tinually updated by the INS as the aircraft moves into its weapon launch position.
For the weapon delivery itself, the INS provides initial position, velocity, and at-
titude data for the weapon.
Stand-off weapons require the same set of funct~ons,but the missile itself takes
over the final target acquisition and terminal homing. For such weapons, the INS
in the launch aircraft simply has to provide initial conditions for the missile, which
may also have a small INS for midcourse guidance, good enough to steer the n~issile
into a target acquisition basket.

Stand-off weapon systems. The following discussion on navigation re-

quirements for precision-guided stand-off weapon (PGSOW) delivery are based on
detailed results shown in Shapiro (19861. The successful delivery of a PGSOW
depends, in general, on three key elements: knowledge of launch position param-
eters, knowledge of target position, and accuracy of navigation between these two
positions. The basic PGSOW mission scenario is shown in Figure 5-3 which depicts
the flight legs from aircraft takeoff to weapon launch point, then the weapon flight
to target arca window, and finally to the impact point.
The focus hcrc is on the choices for providing accurate navigation to the low-
cost, short-range (20-mile) RPV or powered glide bomb which cannot sustairl the
size, weight, or cost penalties of a high-precision navigation system. In order to
ascertain the accuracy requirement for the PGSOW, it is necessary to estimate the
capability of the terminal seeker which, in the final analysis, determines the sizc of
the target window or search arca. The burden placed on the terminal seeker incrcnscs
 Sec. 5.2 Common Requirements for Inerthi Naulgators 183

TARGET
/SEARCH
- - ~

TARGET

LAUNCHING
AIRCRAFT

FLIGHT ORIGINATION
POINT

Figure 5-3 PGSOW Mission Scenario ( F r o ~ n[Shapiro, 19861 w~idtpennisrionjom ACARD)

with the size of the required search area imposed by uncertainty in relative weapon
and target positions. In the case of an 1R seeker, for example, the window may be
relatively narrow for a given angular field of view because of the limited range due
to atmospheric attenuation. An active millimeter wave radar can provide longer-
range operation in bad weather (several kilometers); however, the limited aperture
available for the antenna and the consequent limited angular resolution creates prob-
lems with false alarms and poor detection probability as the search area is increased.
Therefore, the PGSOW must navigate to the target zone with sufficient cross-
track accuracy to insure that the target lies within the swath described by its forward
motion and the scanning limits of the terminal seeker. Based on the foregoing types
of considerations. it can be concluded that a vractical search area width is about 1
km. The corresponding navigation cross-track error budget should be limited to
one half of this, or 0.5 km. The along-track error is dependent on the allowable
false alarm and desired detection probability criteria. Obviously, as the along-track
extent of the search decreases, these probabilities become more favorable. The along-
track navigation error can be specified, however, as being the same as the cross-
track error, namely 0.5 km. T o achieve the preceding performance objectives, the
navigation system for the PGSOW must have a heading error over the 20 miles of
better than 1 deg and an along-track error ofless than 1.5 percent of distance traveled.
The future will see an increased demand for more agile missiles for both air-
and ground-launched applications. Gun-launched missiles involving high acceler-
ations at launch will contain guidance systems. Inasmuch as strapdown guidance
systems have been included in missiles that are subject to high roll rates and high
 184 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

acceleration, the need for more rugged navigation instruments having a dynamic
range greater than what conventional gyros offer is brought to the forefront. A
fiber-optic gyro is described [Kay, 19873 that, although it is still in the laboratory
stage, has demonstrated good performance and, at the same time, ruggedness, quick
starting, and low cost.

Visual attack systems. Following Barnes [1987], in an effort to expose

the aircraft to as little ground-based radar as possible, much of the development
subsequent to World War 11 has been focused on low-altitude flight. Another goal
related to this effort was, until the development of look-down Doppler radars, to
make it more difficult for a defensive fighter aircraft to identify an incoming raid.
Considering that the total time of an attack pass may be just a few seconds, target
acquisition is rendered more difficult by low-altitude attacks. In these few seconds,
the pilot of an attacking aircraft armed with unguided weapons must maneuver on
to an attack heading, stabilize the aircraft path, and release the weapon. Precise
navigation and an accurate calculation of weapon release are two elements that are
absolutely essential for a successful attack. The former ensures that target acquisition
occurs as early as possible, while the latter minimizes delivery error.
Regarding attacks that can be conducted under visual conditions, the require-
ments for precise navigation with an acceptable workload, especially at high speed
and low altitude, have been met by the introduction of inertial platforms and moving
map displays. Although such developn~entssimplify the task of acquiring pre-
planned, fixed-position targets early, they do little for acquisition of targets of op-
portunity. Similarly, two cle~nentshave combined to meet thc rcquirements of
accurate calculation of weapon release. The first involves the ability to obtain data
on aircraft altitude, heading, and speed from the inertial platform. Thc second rclates
to the ability to digitally process in the aircraft range to target obtained from a
ranging systenl. The ability to carry out high-speed, low-altitude attacks a t night
and in poor visibility has also bcen enhanced owing to other dcvclopmcnts. One
of the first of thcsc was ground-mapping radar, which enabled pilots ro attack targets
giving discrete radar returns and targets whose position was known relative to some
observable and recognizable feature on the radar screen. However, radar resolution
is poor relative to visual wavclcngths and forward-looking infrared (FLIR) scnsors
greatly cnhancc the ability of the aircrew to identify both targets at known Iocatiol~s
as wcll as targets of opportunity.

5.3 NAVIGATION COMPUTATION AND ERROR MODELING

5.3.1 Coordinate S y s t e m s

I n navigation computations, thrcc colnponct~tsof accclcration scr~scdby a n or-

thogonal triad of accclcro~nctcrshave to be transfornlcd onto a rcfcrencc coorditlntc
systcm. Thc vclocity and position of thc vchiclc arc then computcd with rcspcct to
Sec. 5.3 Naufgatlon Computation and Error Modeling

Figure 5-4 (a) Earth-Fixed Coordinate (b) Geographic Coordinate

this reference coordinate system (RCS). Because the reference coordinate system
affects both the computation time and accuracy, a suitably selected RCS can min-
imize the processing errors.
Beginning with an earth-fixed set of coordinates (Figure 5-4), we can, by a
series of two rotations first about the z-axis through the longitude angle and then
about the negative y-axis through the latitude angle plus 90 deg, transform from
the earth-fixed coordinates into a navigation coordinate system. In this case the
navigation coordinate system is defined as one in which the x-axis is north, the y-
axis is east, and the z-axis is down. The transformation is depicted graphically in
Figure 5-5. Figure 5-6 derives the resulting direction cosine matrix.
Such a transformation is known as an Euler angle transformation. A similar
transformation will take us from the navigation coordinates into the aircraft body-
axis coordinate system. The first rotation is about z (down) through the heading

Figure 5-5 (a) [Z] Transformation (b) [YI]

Transformation (c) [Yz]
Transfor-
mation
 186 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

X -sin @ 0 - a s @ w s h sin h 0 X X
Y - 0 1 0 -sinhwsh 0 Y
Z ms @ 0 -sin cP 0 0 1 Z Z
NAV FAR'IH FARlH

- sin@ms h - sin@sin h - cosQ

-sin h msh 0 where h = longituic (East)
<= Q = latitude (North)
cos@msh cos@sin h -sin@
Figure 5-6 Earth-to-NAV Direction Cosine Matrix

angle +. The second rotation is about the new y (right-wing) axis through the pitch
angle 0. The third and final rotation is about the new x (roll) axis through the roll
angle 4. The direction cosine matrix for this transformation is derived in Figure 5-
7
1.

In a gimballed system, the accelerometers would be maintained parallel to the

navigation system axes. In a strapdown system, they would be parallel to the aircraft
body axes (or in some fixed relationship to the aircraft axes) and their outputs have
to be transformed into navigation axes in order to calculate velocity and position
with respect to the earth. The inverse of the direction cosine matrix shown in Figure
5-7 could be used for the body-to-NAV transformation, but this involves com-
puting nine quantities a t a high iteration rate. More often this transformation is done
with quaternions, a four-parameter representation of the same thing. Conceptually
quaternions describe a coordinate transformation by a single rotation. Three of the
parameters are related to the direction cosines of the axis of rotation, and the fourth
parameter is related to the magnitude of the rotation about that axis.

5.3.2 Position and Velocity Generation

A simple block diagram of space-fixed navigation computation is given in Figure

- - -

5-8. In the figure and xSare inertial position and velocity vectors, respectively,
in a space-fixed coordinate system. Navigation and guidance of the Saturn launch
vehicles using this navigation computation has been implemented onboard with
negligible error contributions from the computations. For propellant economy, the

X 1 0 0 w s 8 0 -sin0 aSIV sinIV 0 X X

Y - 0 w s + sin+ 0 1 0 - s i n v cosv 0 Y
Z 0 -sin+ a s + sin0 0 w s 8 0 0 1 2 Z
BODY NAV SAV

cosems~, ws 0 sin v -sin 0

where Q = heading
%-- - cos 4, sin yl + sin + sin 0 cos 9 + +
cos cos + sin sin 8 sin I) sin cos 0 + 0 = pitch
- +
+ sin 4 sin Q + cos 4, sin 0 cos 9 sin cos 9 + ms 4 sin 0 sin I$ cos cos 8 + = roll
Figure 5-7 NAV-to-Body Direction Cosine Matrix
 Sec 5.3 Naulgatlon Computatlon and Error Modellng

MEASURED
INERTIAL
-
A ~ I
--

I:
-
;I I - - - ...
is
* (X*,Y.,Zs)
VELDCITY

- - INCREMENTAL
&AI
-
INERTIAL VELOCITY VECTOR
I SPACE-FIXED
VELOCITY VECTOR

-
XI. -TOTAL INERTIAL VELOCITY VECTOR
-
x l -TOTAL INERTIAL ACCELERATION VECTOR
-
Ap -TOTAL GRAVITATDNAL VELOCITY VECTOR
-
i p -TOTAL GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION VECTOR - 1
NOTE: SUBSCRIPT i DENOTES INITIAL VALUE. I GRAVITY
CotAFWfATuN

SPACE-FIXED
POSITION VECTOR

Figure 5-8 Iqavigation Computations (Frorn [Haeusserrnar~n, 19811, O 1981 AIAA)

iterative, path adaptive guidance mode was selected. The flight vehicle is guided
along a minimum propellant trajectory to obtain the required end condition, such
as the required velocity vector and vehicle position in orbit or the velocity vector
for translunar injection. Figure 5-8 shows how the vehicle state is derived from the
velocity, measured by the accelerometer integrator, in the form of position and
velocity vectors in a space-fixed coordinate system which has its origin at the center
of the earth. The diagram further shows the calculation of the acceleration in the
space-fixed coordinate system as thrust-to-mass ratio, Flm.
The iterative guidance mode for flight- path
. adaptive guidance along a mini-
mum propellant trajectory determines the necessary vehicle attitude corrections and
.
the urouulsion termination command to obtain the reauired end conditions for the
i x

flight vehicle. The guidance functions for the thrust direction and for its termination
were expressed by a series development of the reference attitude and of the pro-
pulsion cutoff time in terms of position and velocity components, time, and ac-
celeration; the coefficients of the terms in the series were determined using calculus
of variations and stored in the guidance computer. Forover-the-earth flight vehicles,
the required position vector and velocity vector x are not expressed in space-
fixed coordinates but in earth-fixed coordinates, as seen in Section 5.3.1 [Haeus-
sermann, 19811.
 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

5.3.3 Data Processing

A block diagram of the processing of a generalized navigation computer is given

in Figure 5-9. In this figure, it is seen that: (1) the outputs A 8 c and A V A of the
inertial sensors, that is, gyros and accelerometers, are incremental due to digital
processing; (2) coordinate transformations are required in order to transfer the body
coordinates to earth coordinates ,(see Section 5.3.1); and (3) filtering is sometimes
required for data smoothing.

5.3.4 INS Error Analysis and Modeling

Following Bar-Itzhack and Berman [1988], the outputs of an ideal INS are the exact
position, velocity, and attitude of the host vehicle. The error analysis of INS or, in
particular, terrestrial INS brings to light many interesting features typical of INS.
It is no wonder that much of the literature on INS is concerned with its error analysis
and error propagation. In analyzing INS errors, questions arise immediately con-
cerning the behavior of the errors as a function of time, the ability to even measure
all error components, the ability to estimate those errors that cannot be directly
measured, and whether or not it is possible to control the errors. Rather than fo-
cusing, therefore, on new features of the INS, emphasis is placed on casting the
known INS characteristics in terms of linear systems and control theory concepts
and exploring hidden relationships between system parameters and states that affect
system performance.
In the examination of system observabiljty, a straightforward transformation
is used into observable and unobservable subsystems that, in turn, exposes the states
that hamper the estimation of INS errors during the initial alignment and calibration
.-
1) A0 Proossing: (Angle Inawmt)
- - - +--
Coordinate
-Thnsforma~on Earth Caord.
lian~form~ti~n
sq - - - - -
-We, Ve

Navigation -& 6 6
Procasing +e"E
-h
Be
2) AV Ptocssing: (Vekxity Inaancnt)
+ xD YES%
&Ordinatc --+
V~
Naviption +k
-%>~O,-AO~- P'occssing
& + AE
Ffltering ---4
, --b r
+,q: EulaAnglcs VB: Vclodty in Body Cmrd.
0 ~ : Body Rate in Body Coord. VE: Vdm'ty in Earth Coad.
6 ~ :Body Rate in Earth Chord. Xt YB & Pcsitions in Earth M.
r: T m Lag
Figure 5-9 Processing of a Generalizrd Navigation Computer
Sec. 5.3 Naulgatlon Computatlon and Error Modellng 189

phase o f operation. This approach was adopted successfully in the past by Kortum
[I9761 who considered the problem of INS platform alignment, in which the mea-
surements were the horizontal accelerometer outputs. A comparison of this approach
with the classical one that is presented here, as well as the discussion of uniqueness
and thc relationship between observability and quality of estimation, provide ad-
ditional insight into the observability issue. The examination of INS as a unified
system from a control theory point of view sheds more light on the systcm and
contributes additional insight into the analysis of INS [Bar-Itzhack and Bcrman,
19881.

I N S error models. There arc two approaches to the derivation of INS

error models. O n e of them is known as the perturbation (or trrre frame) approach,
and the other is known as the psi-angle (or cotnputer frame) approach [Benson, 1973).
When deriving the perturbation error model, the nomlnal nonlinear navigation equa-
tions are perturbed in the local-level north-pointing Cartesian coordinate system
that corresponds to the true geographic
- . location of the INS. The psi-angle error
model, on the other hand, is obtained when the nominal equations are perturbed
in the local-level north-pointing coordinate system that corresponds to the geo-
graphic location indicated by the INS. The development of the first model can be
found in Broxmeyer [I9641 and Britting [1971], whereas the development of the
psi-angle model can be found in Pitman [I9621 and Leondes [1963]. Benson [I9751
showed that both models are equivalent and yield, therefore, identical results. The
differential eauations that describe the error behavior of the INS are divided into
equations describing the propagation of the translatory errors and equations de-
scribing the propagation o f the attitude errors.
Bar-Itzhack and Berman [I9881 pointed out that most of the published works
on INS errors adopt the psi-angle approach and use the velocity error version of
the translatory error equation. This model is also used in the present analysis. It
possesses the advantage that the translatory error is not coupled into the attitude
error equations [Pitman, 19621. The physical attitude difference between the plat-
form and the local-level north-pointing coordinate system is calculable using the
position and attitude errors obtained from the solution of these INS error equations.
The choices made yield a complex terrestrial INS error model expressed by the
following equations [D'Appolito, 1971; Nash, 19721:

where v , r, and I) are, respectively, the velocity, position, and attitude error vectors;
0 is the earth-rate vector; w is the ang~~lar-rate vector of the true coordinate system
with respect to an inertial frame; V is the accelerometer-error vector; f is the specific-
force vector; Ag is the error in the computed gravity vector; p is the vector of the
rate of rotation o f the true frame with respect to earth; and E is the gyro-drift vector.
190 Inertial Naulgatlon Chap. 5

It can be shown [Leondes, 19631 that in the local north, east, and down coordinate
system,

a=
R cos L
[ 0
- R sin L
] (5-2)

where L is the local latitude. The vector w is computed as follows:

o = n + p (5-3)
where

.=[ icos L
.-i
- A sin L
1
and ); is the longitude rate. When Equations (5-1) are resolved in the true frame,
(5-4)

nine scalar differential equations are obtained that can be put in a state-space model.
If the expressions given in Equations (5-2) to (5-4) are used, the resulting state-
space model is shown in Figure 5-10. The INS error propagation is of interest when
the system is at rest. In most cases, INS alignment and calibration, which are a most
essential phase of the operation of any INS, take place when the system is at rest.
Also, the distinct behavior of INS errors is exposed when the system is a t rest.
When the INS is at rest, Equations (5-1) reduce to:
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
-
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
d V . ~ 0 0 0 2RD 0 0 A? 0
- -w2 0 -20D 0 2fiN -2 0 0
dt
vD 0 202 0 -2nN o 0 0 0
O O O O O O RD 0
4E 0 0 0 0 o -RD o R,W
-. - 0 0 0 0 0 0 -ON 0 -

where 0' = g / R , R N = cos L is the north component of earth rate, and R D =

-a sin L is the down component of earth rate. The latter model can be writtcn as
i ' = A f x + f' (5-5b)
Sec. 5.3 Naulgatlon Computation and Error Modellng 191

where the definitions of x ' , f ', and A' arc obvious. Initial alignment and calibration
arc usually performed when the INS is resting at a location whose geographic co-
ordinates are known almost perfectly; that is, r N - - - r~ r~ 0 [Pitman, 19621.
For this reason, the first three states of the state vector can be eliminated. The
measured signals during initial alignment and calibration are v . and ~ V E , but v ~ ,
the vertical velocity error, is of no interest. Moreover, the vertical channel is only
very weakly coupled with the horizontal channels [Hutchinson, 1968; Yavnai, 19801.
Thus, v r , does not play any role in the development of the measured signals v ~ and
V E ; hence. v ~ can also be eliminated from the state vector ofthe model that describes
the INS error behavior during the initial alignment and calibration stage. In modern
systems, a Kalman filter is used to perform the initial alignment and calibration;
however, the model given in Equations (5-5) is not suitable for use in a Kalman
filter since the accelerometer error and gyro-drift rates are not white-noise processes,
as required for proper use in a Kalman filter. This obstacle is very easily overcome
since, fortunately, the statistical characteristics of realistic accelerometer and gyro
error data can be represented quite accurately by the outputs oflinear models driven
by white-noise processes [Gelb, 1974; Heller, 19751. When this is done and the
models are augmented with the basic INS error model, the driving force of the
augmented model does not contain correlated noise, and the model can then be used
in a Kalman filter. In the analysis here, it is assumed that the accelerometer errors
are basically bias errors and that the gyro errors are basically constant drifts, that
is,

When r . ~ ,YE, r D , and v ~ are removed from the state of the INS error model of
Equations (5-5) and the resulting model is augmented with Equations (5-6). the
following is obtained:

This model can be written as

where the definitions of x and A are obvious. The latter model describes the prop-
agation of v~ and v~ when the INS is at rest and the accelerometer and gyro errors
 192 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

sL and CLdenote, rcspcaively, the sine and &e of L,and the subscripts N, E, and
D denote the n o d , cast, and down mmponents, rcspsctively.
Figure 5-10 State Equation of Terrestrial INS Error Model (From [Bar-ltzhatk et al., 19881,
0 1988 AIAA)

are constants. Although it seems that this model is not general enough, it turns out
that the conclusions derived from it are quite useful. An estimate o f the state vector
yields the estimation of $, as well as the estimate of the accelerometer and gyro
constant errors. Obtaining the former is known as alignment, and obtaining the
latter is known as calibration. An examination of the models given in Equations
(5-5) and (5-7) from the point of view of a control analyst is presented in Bar-
Itzhack and Berman [1988].

5.4 GIMBALLED INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEM (INS)

In inertial platform gimbal mechanizations, the gyroscopes mounted on a stable

element in a gimbal1 system measure angular rates, and the gimbal drive system
uses the angular rate information in a feedback manner to rotate the gimbals and
null the angular motion sensed by the gyroscopes. In this manner, the gyroscopes
and accelerometers mounted on the stable element are inertially stabilized from the
vehicle motion and the stable member physically represents an inertial reference
frame.
Alternatively, control torques to the gyros can cause them to precess a t pre-
cisely the same rate as the combination ofthe earth's rate of rotation plus the angular
ratc of thc vehicle's position with respect to the earth. In this way two of the
accelerometers can be maintained in a locally level plane, the third being parallel to
the vertical axis a t all times. Most aircraft and marine gimballed inertial navigation
systems are mechanized in this manner.

5.4.1 Gimbal Mechanism

In aircraft applications, a four-gimbal mechanism as shown in Figure 5-1 1 for the

platform unit of a gimballed INS is required to avoid gimbal lock. In surface vchicle
applications, a three-gimbal mechanism for the platform unit of a gimballed INS
suffices as shown in Figure 5-12.
 Sec 5.4 Glmbalied Inertlal Navigation System (INS)

Outer

Accelerometers)

Figure 5-11 Four-Gimbal Mrchanisn~

5.4.2 Inertial Sensors on the Stable Platform

Inertial sensors on the stable platform are gyros and accelerometers. If SDF (single-
degree-of-freedom) gyros are to be used, three gyros (mutually orthogonal) are
required for the north, east, and vertical (NEV) coordinates. If 2DF (two-degree-
of-freedom) gyros are to be used, two gyros are required and installed. In Figure
5-13 three gyrolaccelerometer pairs are installed so as to measure the angular rate
and acceleration along each of three axes.
5.4.3 Platform Alignment Modes
There are two alignment modes, coarse alignment and fine alignment. In the coarse
alignment mode, accelerometers are used for leveling control of the platform, while

Figure 5-12 Three-Gimbal Mechanism

 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

Figure 5-13 Inertial Sensors on the Sta-

ble Platform: Three-GyroIAcceleromet~
Pairs

the gyros sense the direction of zero earth rate (east-west). In the fine alignment
mode, A Z gyro slew gives a more accurate aiignment of the platform. During the
fine alignment or gyro compass phase, the objective is to keep the pitch, roll, and
AZ gimbal aligned with true north and the horizontal. Any AZ misalignment causes
the east gyro to sense a component of the eaith rate and thus tilts the platforn~about
the east-axis. The north accelerometer then generates a pseudo velocity due to the
platform tilting about the east-axis. The pseudo velocity is then used to drive a r
gyro torquer and its associated gimbal servo to achieve the proper alignment.

5.4.4 Navigation Mode

Gimbal systems provide a good dynamic environment for inertial instruments, par-
ticularly in vchidcs that are to perform at high maneuver Icvels, since the gimbals
isolate the gvros
", from the rotational environment. In fact, the state of the art is such
that navigation performance of gimbal systcms can approach alnlost error-free in-
strument operation, to the point where uncertainties in the knowledge ofthe gravity
field become the dominant sources of navigational error. A simplified diagram to
show the relationship between the platform and the navigation computer is given
in Figure 5-14. The two mechanizations for the platform attitude reference are the
space stable and local vertical. The platform space-stable inertial mechanization is
given in Figure 5-l5a. Figure 5-l5b illustrates the case in which the geographical-
north-pointing local-level navigation frame is the instrumented stable member frame
for a gimbal system. The local~levelframe is the most common for gimbal systems.
The local-vertical frame is usuallv a form of a .,fiec-arimirth reference frame in which
no attempt is made in a gimbal system to point one of the stable-member axes north,
as illustrated in Figure 5-15c. This mechanization eliminates difficulties in flying
over the earth's poles. T w o of the axes are maintained level but are free to rotate
in azimuth aboutthe third axis, which is maintained along the local vertical [Schmidt,
19871.
Figure 5-16 shows a block diagram of the x channel in a navigation computer.
The operations of a navigation computer include: (1) The correction rate o, is used
Sec. 5.4 Gimballed Inertial Navigation System (INS)

I Acaltr~metm 1 Navigation
-.
Gym 'bquing Rates mpuution

P l a t f m Heading
&Attitude
L - - - - J
Figure 5-14 R e l ~ r ~ o n s h bcr\vecn
lp rhe Plarfi)rni a t ~ t~l i ~N L Y I ~ L ~CIoO~ Ii i~p i ~ t e r

to torque the y gyro, and thus causes gyro precession. The gyro output is then used
to drive the platform servo so as to maintain the x-axis horizontal. (2) A s , Ay, and
Az are the measured accelerations from accelerometers in the navigation coordinates.
(3) The correction at the Ax summing point is composed of coriolis, centrifugal,
and transport accelerations.

5.4.5 System Internal and External Interfaces

Itlterfilce: The gimballed INS typically consists of eight main functional
It~rc'rtrr~l
blocks. For each function block, the interface infor~nationis given as shown
in Figure 5-17.
E.urrnrnl 111teuf;lce:The I10 (inputloutput) interface between the gimballed INS
and vehicles is given as follows: (1) Inputs-In order to permit operation in
aided-inertial configurations, a standard INS accepts the following digital in-
puts in M U X serial format (MIL-STD-1553): position update (latitude and
longitude), velocity update (velocities in INS coordinates), angular update (an-
gles about INS axes), and gyro torquing update (torquing rate to INS gyro
axes); and (2) Outputs-The system provides pitch, roll, and heading in both
analog (synchro) and digital form. In addition, the following outputs are pro-
vided on a serial M U X channel (MIL-STD-1533): present position (latitude,
longitude, altitude), vehicle attitude (pitch, roll, true and magnetic heading),
vehicle velocity (horizontal and vertical), and steering information (track angle
error).

5.4.6 Navigation Mechanization and Error Model

Mechanization. In the example of Figure 5-18 Uoos and Krogmann,

19811, the diagram consists of two portions: I M U and navigation computer. O n
the I M U platform, there are three SDF gyros and three accelerometers with their
sensitive axes pointing in (N,E,V) coordinates. In the navigation computer, the
vertical channel is aided by the baro-height. The navigation computer includes com-
pensations for earth rate, vehicle rate with respect to the earth, coriolis acceleration,
and gravity. Figure 5-19 depicts Doppler aiding where the aiding velocity reference
V.YDcomes from a Doppler radar [Streeter; 19721. With the errob e,, the original
U
kcelermeter
!
trtod m o n
inertally
stabilized Pccekrometer-
platform measured spccif ic
force in lnertml
CQardiwtes

t
Alt~tudeInformation

Init~olc o n d ~ t m s
I
Nav~got~on
Posttlon ~n computer
* Lotitude ( L)
Lonpitude ( I I
Alt~tude( h )
lnert~olcwrdtnotes
t

itotiliied
platform

(B)
Indial Altitude
Wndtt~otn mfamoton
Velocity lv7
ws~tlon(L,I,&

Figure 5-15 (a) I'latforn~ Space-Stable Inertial Mcchanization (b) I'latform Geo-
graphic Local-Vertical Mechanization (c) Platform Free-Azimuth Mechanization
(Rrprinfed with prnnissio~tjotn (Srh~nidf,Sysfons fi C o ~ ~ f r61cytlopedio),
ol Copyright
11987), Per.qafnon Press PLC)
 Sec. 5.4 GImballed lnertlal Navlgatlon System (INS)

Figure 5-16 x Channel Mechanization

o i a Navigation Computer

undamped loop can be damped as follows: (1) With free inertia ( k = 0, n o Doppler
aiding), the characteristic equation is "s glR = 0 with natural frequency w, =
(glR)'12 = 2 n l T where the period T is the so-called Schuler period; and (2) With
Doppler aiding, the characteristic equation is s' + ks + glR = 0 with damping
ratio 5 = kl(2w,,). Thus, with Doppler aiding, the original undamped system will
be damped with damping ratio 5.
With altimeter nidirlg (see Figure 3-20), the altitude reference h~ is given by an
altimeter and thus generates the flight height error E,, to damp the loop. In Figure
5-20, thc feedback gains K I and K 2 can be selected so as to nicely damp the vertical
100~.

*15V DC Power llSAC 400&

-
Gyro Master
28V DC
I
26AC 400 Hz

Gym Torque DatalAddress Bus

b MUX
MUX Bus
Gyro Output IMU Control - I
-Acc. Output Platform
IMU Status
INS I Vehicle
Platform ACC. Captu: ~~~~~~~i~~ velocity pulses VO .e, I
Gimbal Stab.
I
.
t
?

Platform Pitch, Roll & Heading

Vehicle Altitude
Display Indicator (ADI)
Figure 5-17 Interface Information for Gimballed INS
 See. 5.5 Strapdown Inertial Navlgatlon System (INS)

J Figure 5-19 Doppler Aiding

Error models. In the Doppler-aided INS error model shown in Figure 5-

21, there arc nine states in the loop, five statcs in the A.y loop and four statcs in the
A loop (not shown). For altitude aiding, the error model is depicted in Figure 5-
20. A self-contained navigation system without aiding has the error model shown
in Figure 5-22a. Figure 5-22b illustrates a block diagram of a generalized mecha-
nization for a local-level free-azimuth INS.

Performance trade-off analysis. The errors 6x in any inertial system

mechanization (for example, nine states as in Figure 5-21) can be cast in the usual
state-variable form 6x = F6x + Gq where the coefficient matrices are functions of
the system mechanization and vehicle dynamics [Schmidt, 19781. This allows the
standard covariance matrix propagation equations to be used in predicting inertial
system performance. If external aids (see Section 5.7) are to be considered, the
Kalman filter update equations can be applied to study requirements on aiding ac-
curacy, frequency of updates and so on, to predict accuracies in the estimates 6 i
that could be achieved in the actual implementation [Schmidt, 19871.

5.5 STRAPDOWN INERTW NAVIGATION SYSTEM (INS)

A generalized strapdown INS consists of IMU, electronic unit (EU), and computer
unit (CU). The IMU is a sensor package with a gyro triad and an accelerometer
triad without a gimbal device. This is the main difference between strapdown nav-
igation systems and gimbal navigation systems. Since there are no gimbals to keep
the sensor package in a prescribed orientation, there is an extraordinary computa-
tional load imposed on the CU. The basic concepts of the strapdown inertial nav-
igation are that the body-to-NAV direction cosine matrix is computed using strap-
down body-mounted gyro outputs. Then the horizontal and vertical accelerations
are computed analytically using this direction cosine matrix to transform acceler-
ometer outputs into local-level navigation coordinates.

5.5.1 Generalized Strapdown Mechanization

A simplified block diagram showing the IMU and navigation computer is given in
Figure 5-23. An overview of the strapdown mechanization is given in Figure 5-
24. From this figure, it is seen that the acceleration Ab (in body coordinates) is
8 Vertical Definition of Variables
(Error Model)
9 .
bVX, bVyv 6VZ VELOC I l Y ERROR

*xl*y PLATFORM TILT

'Jz AZIMUTH ERROR

b+, ANGULAR POSITION ERROR
R ~ Ry
* RADIUS OF CURVATURE
A; VERTICAL THRUST ACCELERATION
9 VERTICAL GRAVITY APPROXIMATION
% '
CONSTANT 32.2 ft/sec2
vx. vY*V, COMPOSITE ACCELEROMETER ERROR
c , COMPOSITE GYRO ERROR
X'YZ ,
s gx, bgy bgZ GRAVITY ANOMALY
sh ALTITUDE ERROR
I T 7
C.. P., V. CORRECTION TERMS
1
-
i x, y, z
1 I
Sec. 5.5 Strapdown lnertlal Naulgatlon System (INS)

Figure 5-21 Srarc Error 6.4, Model

transformed onto local-level axes to compute the NAV axes acceleration compo-
nents A,, A,, and A,. The internal structure of the strapdown navigation system
is given in Figure 5-23. Note that in this figure, the angle and velocity output of
the inertial sensor components are small increments to be integrated in the body
attitude and velocity computations. Thc small increments in A 0 and A V are pro-
cessed as shown in Figure 5-26. Figure 5-27 Uoos and Krogmann, 19811 is another
view of the same system depicting the gyros and accelerometers. A detailed block
diagram of a rate gyro strapdown inertial navigation system is presented in Boggess
[1986].

5.5.2 Strapdown Navigation Computer

The strapdown navigation computer may transform the body-axis sensor data into
either inertial coordinates or into geographic local-vertical coordinates. The strap-
down system computing in inertial coordinates is given in Figure 5-28a. The strap-
down system computing in geographic local-vertical coordinates is given in Figure
3-28b. Figure 5-29 shows a generalized block diagram for strapdown inertial com-
putations. This diagram shows that the computations are partitioned into two parts:
a high-speed section that transforms the body-axis measurements of acceleration
and attitude rates into navigation axes, and a slower-speed section that performs
the navigation routines just as they would be computed in a gimballed system.

5.5.3 Strapdown Computer Requirements

Typical computer requirements for a strapdown NAV computer call for a 16-bit com-
puter whose properties include a speed of 250-350 KOPS (the computer throughput
 MEClL4NlZATlffl b P ~
NORTH-POIM ING
{NO POlAR CAPABILITI)
tan* &P
Y
-.pX sccZ+b $
FRE-AZIMUIH 5 4 * "a '%
WANDlR FWUKl u
Y
box *I bo
Y
AZIMUIH
IWUR VNlPMR
CAPABILITYI
g Gikw
lMISPHRL
- I - IC, b y + 4. bpi]

L M P SIGN
SOUIHRN
lMISPHiE
.
 -

1. I. 2 m ? i p t i m ~ l t d li 0 8 t e .XU

A,. AY. A, h l e m r t e r artpts

Uechmuet ton i "*
v,, v,. vz v.locltY -ant8 relatire to e u t h
mrtb-0i.tiu ( a = O)
(no 0181 a p h i l i t l ) 0
$#, + =x.J?, %,
I-% P,, P,. p, ?l.tlan mrulu n t e s-at. relatlra to b r t h

wee-uiath An o n., ~9l,.u n h rat. C-~S

P ~ u i -(i+qclZ
~ ~ - cclZ -
b tic altitude
b&r
~~polar rn UUd -to1181 ndiuS Of the
hhth
Vppr s i w
(DlU f n ~ t t . s i y 01 tho u r t h
I(0rtb.m
Umbilib) I*.isobe~cn iA: $49 ' %+1
'
4 -tic latitld*
-1 siw I$, t 1)
htbern h laeitpd*
Hais~b*r*
a h h t h d e r -la

C~ Directim c m i u s d * f i n i ~latit*. 1-1-

and u i u t b -10. 8prifialb
C,, = uuacmk-sinasin48iah
c, = -.hawk-caasi.Csi.A
C, = w4si.k
$, = s i n a co 6
c , = solac04
c,, = .lo 4

Figure 5-22 (a) Level Channel Error Model (b) Generalized Mechanization for Local-Level
Free-Inertial Navigation Systems (From [Martin, 19861 with permissionf*om Litton)
 204 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

IMUICOMPUTER ELECTRONICS CDU

r.
I
I-IIII-.IIIIII

-I
I I -
r----7
i
I
I
I
I
SENSOR
BLOCK
- IMU ELECTRONICS
REBALANCE
COMPUTER
110
( I
I
I
I I
I ' CONTROU
I
I
I
I
GYROS

ACCELEROMETERS - ELECTRONICS

POWER SUPPLIES.
TIMING
CPU
MEMORY 4 n

I I
I
I
DISPLAY
UNIT I
I
I
I J

I I A
I
LI.II.I-II-I.IIIIIIIJ L----d
(A)

1 IMU (Electronic Gimbal)

Transform
Strapdown
Accelerometers Navigation
Computation
.. Attitude Rotation Rates
Strapdown Attitude Pseudo-Platform Heading
Gyros * Computation ,Attitude

Figure 5-23 (a) T\pical Strapdo\vn System Simplified Block Diagram (b) Strap-
down IMU and Na\.igation Computer ((aifitn marf fit^, 19861 u~irltpcrmissiotl.~otn
Lirrot!)

may rcach 3.0 MIPS to support a wide bandwidth autopilot for high dynamic ap-
plications), a memory sizc of 12-15 K, 1 p S for addition, 8 p S for multiplication,
and 10 FS for division. Thesc con~putationrequircmcnts are for 1 NMIIhr navi-
gation systclns. Thc eri~~irotirtictitalreqrrirctr~etitsinclude an accclcration of 13-30 g,
500-10000/scc maximum angular ratcs, a 100 g (20 MS) shock, a MIL-E-5400 (curve
IV) vibration, and a MIL-E-5400 (Class 2) thcrmal.

5.5.4 Strapdown Error Model and Analysis

Error sources. l3asically, thc strapdown crror sourccs can bc grouped illto
thc two following catcgorics.
Instrument Errors. Thcrc arc significant diffcrcnccs in the navigation per-
formances bctwccn gimbal and strapdown systclns bccausc o f calibration limita-
tions, sensor inaccuracics, colnputational errors, and sensor crror propagatioll cf-
 SAME AS LOCAL LEVEL AND
ALTITUDE
f REE INERTIAL
NAVIGATION EQUATIONS

TO BODY AXES
LOCAL LEVEL AXES

RESOLUTION

BODY AXES

t C
OCI 1 = [OX' Oy' \]
T
: Oi 'Pi

LOCAL LEVEL SPATIAL RATES I N LOCAL LEVEL AXES

+ni : i = X. y, z

Figure 5-24 Generalized Strapdowll M r c l ~ ~ n i z a t i o (1:rorrl

nl /Alclrrirl, IY#6/ wirh prrrr~issi~~r,li~~,,~
Lillor!)
 206 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

Reference h r d i i a t e System
Vehicle Body CkxdiiteSystem (Locally Level,A Space E m )
A

0 -A0
P' &
R' Attitude -)Attitude
MY (0, $, q)
Vchick
4 Inertial and
AVx (Y ,V y ,V,)
Bod' sensor
mponents
a;-
A
velocity
+Velocity

Campubtiom +Present Pasition (k,h a)

4

Conuol System

Figure 5-25 Internal Structure of the Strapdown Navigation System

fects. O f these, the instrument errors can be caused by the following error sources
[Schmidt, 19871. (1) Calibration limitations on strapdown systems arise because the
inertial sensors, which are rigidly attached to the vehicle, cannot be arbitrarily ori-
ented at different angles to provide known inputs from the earth's gravity and
angular velocity vectors for a stationary vehicle. (2a) In single-degrce-of-freedom
gyros, a gyro drift, called anisoinertia-induced drift, will be prescllt whenever the
gyro experiences accelerations such as vibration concurrently about its spin and input
axes. To eliminate such an error source requires complicated compensation, so the
system designer must understand the interplay between vehicle environment, sensor

BODY COMPUTATIONAL
FR M FRAME
-(We @,*I

SENSOR ATTITUDE MATRIX SYSTEM

INTEGRATION. NAVIGATION , OUTPUTS +

COMPENSATlON TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS (LAT-LONG)

EQUATIONS -

- SELF-CONTAINED
ALIGNMENT -
EQUATIONS
.
Figure 5-26 Typical Strapdown Software Requircmcnts (F~OIII
/hlorritr, 191161 urirh
perrnisriorl j o ~ nLirrort)
Sec 5.5 Strapdown Inertial Navigation System (INS)

Figure 5-27 Gyro and Accelerometer Components of Strapdown Navigation Sys-

tcrn (Frorrr Uooi nrrd Kroyrnarm, 19811 wirl~purnrrisio~rjorrr AGARD)

design, and the resulting navigation system performance when selecting a particular
type of gyroscope for a strapdown system. (2b) Gyro-torquing scale factor error,
particularly asymmetrical scale factor, causes errors in a vibratory environment. (2c)
Output axis rotation error causes the strapdown gyro to have a drift error propor-
tional to the angular acceleration along its output axis. This error source usually
dictates how the gyros are mounted in the vehicle; the output axes of the gyros can,
for example, be placed along the yaw andlor pitch axes in an aircraft application.
(3) Alignment errors incurred by initializing the transformation matrix using the
accelerometers for leveling information result in tilt errors which produce navigation
errors. (4) In strapdown navigation systems that have external position or velocity-
aiding sensors one can calibrate accelerometer biases in flight, since they produce
observable errors in a strapdown system, but not in a gimballed system.

Computational Errors. Computation-induced errors in strapdown systems

refer to those navigation errors introduced by the incorrect transformation of the
body-measured specific forces to the computational frame. The factors causing the
incorrect transformation matrix include: the algorithm used to generate the trans-
formation matrix, the speed at which the transformation occurs, the roundoff due
to computer word length used, quantization of gyro outputs, truncation due to
integration scheme, and renormalization of the quaternion vector. They all play a
part in contributing to computational errors. Since this type of error also depends
on the vehicle's dynamic environment, most designers evaluate it by computer
simulation [Savage, 1984(a)].
 Inertial Naulgation Chap. 3

- s p c ~ f ~cone
c m

anoulor Hlocnv of
thl body wflh RsWct
to ncrtal w e

Altitude ~ n f m t r n

Figure 5-28 (a) Strapdown System Computing in Inertial Coordinates (b) Strap-
down System Computing in Geographic Local-Vertical Coordinates (Rrpritlted with
permisriot~f*om(Schmidt, Sysrmis G- Control E~lryclopedia),C o p y r ~ k (1987),
t Pergamon
Prrss P L C )

Error model. A strapdown error ~ n o d c lis depicted in Figure 5-30.

5.5.5 Operation Flow Diagram

The functional flow of strapdown navigation systems is dividcd into five blocks as
shown in Figure 5-31.
 Sec. 5.6 Cornparkon and Analysls of QLmbal versus Strapdown

-
NavIpcrtlm Conpltath
II lbmmon to strquklvm and Ohlbalkd Syrtrml

I
Figure 5-29 Block Diagram of Strapdown Inertial Computations (Frorn U o o s a d K r o , q ~ t l ~ ~ t ~ n ,
1981/ wirh p r n n i s s i o t t j o t n ACdRD)

5.6 COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF GIMBAL VERSUS

STRAPDOWN

5.6.1 Feature Comparison

Not only is a gimbal system inherently more accurate than a strapdown system,
but calibration is also easier with a gimbal system. In addition, there is less com-
putation involved and less demand placed on the gyro. O n the other hand, a strap-
down system is smaller in size and more reliable than a gimbal system, eliminating
AID conversion of synchro signals as well as electromechanical components. At-
titude and heading data in a strapdown system are in particular most accurate. Fur-
thermore, angular rates are inherently available in body-referenced axes, making
strapdown INS suitable as a flight control sensor. Multiple redundant systems of
strapdown systems are required when used for flight control because in that role
they become critical to flight safety.

5.6.2 Navigation Errors Comparison

This section presents a comparison of navigation errors based on a detailed analysis

appearing in Schmidt [1987]. While the strapdown system errors listed in the dis-
cussion that follows appear in Section 5.5.4 (Instrument Errors), they are again
mentioned here for the purpose. of a direct comparison between strapdown and
 $$
..
rx

+"I

P
a"'
+
uX
C $
OX
C
Sec. 5.6 Cornparkon and Analysis of Glmbal versus Strapdown

Main Lie
4
{
Senror Ibt
Stan & Self-%st Block 1 Ucctronicr %t

4
Pmcessor %st

Read-In Poaition & Velocity

Level (Self-Alignment)
Initialize Herding Alignment

'Iiansfomtion Matrix
Attitude Update
1 Block3{ {Sensor Uibntion

Gym OP Compensated
Add Lnb Rate & ?hnrpon Rate

No
<
Navigation

Guidance & Control

+
Figure 5-31 Operation Flow in Strapdown Navigation Systems

gimbal systems. There are significant differences in the navigation performance

between gimbal and strapdown systems because of calibration limitations, sensor
inaccuracies, computational errors, and sensor error propagation effects. The ina-
bility to arbitarily orient the rigidly attached inertial sensors of strapdown systems
to provide known inputs from the earth's gravity and angular velocity vectors for
a stationary vehicle results in calibration limitations. Conversely, a gimbal system
is mechanized so that the inertial component outputs at different angular orientations
can be compared with the known input components of gravity or earth rate and
the sensor errors calibrated in a series of test positions that expose the error sources.
Since only a few of the strapdown sensor errors (compared with a gimbal system)
can be calibrated, the system designer must depend on stability of the instruments
between removals of the system from the vehicle for calibration. The errors that
cannot be calibrated in a strapdown system propagate into navigation errors when
the system begins to navigate. Sensor inaccuracies that arise from motion of the
vehicle are even more difficult to calibrate in a strapdown system. The dynamic
response characteristics of the inertial sensor under consideration for use in the
navigator must be well understood and the limitations on navigation performance
must be evaluated early in the system design.
Gyro-torquing scale factor errors such as asymmetrical scale factor errors in
vibratory environments represent another significant source of strapdown system
212 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

sensor error. In a local-vertical gimbal system, gyro scale factor errors usually have
a small effect on navigation system performance, since the torquing angular rates
are small, being nearly equivalent to earth rate plus the angular velocity of the vehicle
over the earth's surface. In a strapdown system, the gyros must, in addition, be
torqued for the attitude rate of the vehicle; consequently, gyro scale-factor-induced
navigation errors can be quite large. Misalignments of gyro input axes in strapdown
systems are also important, for similar reasons. Another major sensor error source
in strapdown single-degree-of-freedom gyros is output axis inertia. In this case, the
strapdown gyro has a drift error proportional to the angular acceleration about its
output axis.
Computation-induced errors in strapdown systems are those navigation errors
introduced by the incorrect transformation of the body-measured specific forces to
the computational frame. The transformation algorithm, its iteration rate, the com-
puter word length and the inertial sensor quantization all play a part in determining-
computational errors. In addition, this type of error depends on the vehicle's dy-
namic environment [Savage, 1984(b)].
Sensor-induced navigation errors propagate differently in a strapdown system.
As noted in Schmidt [1987], in a gimbal system during self-alignment, the acceler-
ometer outputs are used to level the stable member and the misleveling of the stable
member is due primarily to accelerometer bias. When the system starts to navigate,
no significant position or velocity errors occur due to this error source, since the
platform tilt-error contribution exactly cancels the accelerometer bias-error contri-
bution. In a strapdown system, where self-alignment occurs by initializing the trans-
formation matrix using the accelerometers for level information, the identical type
of tilt error results. However, when the system starts to navigate and the vehicle
heading changes, the orientation of the inertial sensors changes with respect to the
alignment (or navigation) axcs and the net rcsult is to introduce a step of acceleration
error, equal to the value of the accelerometer bias if the heading changes by 90 dcg.
Subsequently, velocity and position errors arise both from accelerometer bias and
from the initial tilt error that bias introduced during alignment.
These error effects in strapdown navigation systems that have external position
or velocity-aiding sensors means that one can calibrate accelerometer bias in flight,
since it produces an observable error in a strapdown system. Detailed computer-
based evaluation of performance, including algorithm errors, in a strapdown systcm
design requires the use of a whole-number type of simulator rather than a statistical
(or covariance) approach. This simulator can also evaluate the effects of nonlinear
sensor errors and quantization errors. Such computer programs are used widcly in
the inertial systcnl manufacturing industry. Generally, designers will use the rule
of thumb that for gimbal systems 0.0l0h-' of gyro drift will produce a position
error growth rate of 1.85 km h-' and a velocity error of approximately 1 ms-' for
a terrestrial navigation system; for a strapdown system, the errors would be 20
percent to 50 percent worse. However, as mentioned in Schmidt [1987], thc dif-
ference in errors can be small, depending on the vchiclc environ~nentand thc use
of other aiding sensors (Doppler velocity, position-fixing radar, satcllitc navigatiol1
 Sec. 5.7 External Navlgatfon AIds 213

receivers, and so on). Consequently, the process of preliminary system selection

involves the choice not only of system conlponcnts and mechanization but also of
aiding devices and frequency of updates. These trade-offs are usually conducted
with a general-purpose covariance analysis program [Schmidt, 19781.

6.7 EXTERPUU, NAVIGATION AIDS

An unaided INS has the advantage of possessing all-wcather, all-attitude, and non-
radiating characteristics; high-dynamic response; and self-contained navigation. Dis-
advantages include unbounded position errors and oscillatory velocity errors, ab-
sence of in-flight alignment, long reaction from cold start, and poor recovery from
power interruption. Among the disadvantages, unbounded position error and os-
cillatory velocity error are of most concern to the designer. Thus, it is often necessary
for navigation systems to be aided by some other external navigation sensors.

5.7.1 Aided Inertial Navigation Mechanization

Referring to the nine-state error propagation equation shown in Figure 5-10, for
example, there are generally three types of aiding available to inertial navigation
systems. These are position aiding, velocity aiding, and attitude aiding. Each of
these augmentations
. directly observe one or more of the error states in the INS. In
addition, various combinations of these three aiding techniques may be used.
GPS, T E R C O M , LORAN, and T A C A N are position-aiding devices. Doppler
radar and GPS can both provide velocity updates. Another very important velocity
update is available on stationary vehicles, namely a zero-velocity update. Stellar
observations made by a telescope mounted directly on the stable element of an INS
provide attitude updates, actually psi-angle updates. Other examples of attitude
updating are stored heading alignment and attitude matching transfer alignment
from a master INS to a slave INS.

Effect of augmented inertial mechanization

Error Improvement. From Figure 5-32, it is seen that the augmented inertial
mechanization may keep acceleration, velocity, and position errors in a fixed region.
Figures 5-32a through 5-32c represent self-contained navigation systems. Among
them, the first figure represents the worst case involving free-inertial navigation,
and the last figure represents the best case involving position navigation. However,
augmented inertial mechanization as shown in Figure 5-32d, provides acceleration,
velocity, and position errors which are much better than those of the three self-
contained systems.
Cost and Performance Improvement. From Figure 5-33, it is seen that, in
the region of drift rate O.OOlO/hr,and 0.02"/hr, the position- or velocity-aided inertial
214 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

TIME --+
AUGMENTED INERTIAL NAVIGATION
Figure 5-32 Augmented Inertial Rationale (From [Martin, 19861 with permission from Litton)

REQUl RES
OCl TY

COST 100

10
0.001~1~~ 0.01~1~~ O.l0lH~
I
L0 ' 1 ~ ~
0. lMlHR LO MllHR 10 MllHR
PERFORMANCE
Figure 5-33 Typical Cost vs. Performance: Unaided lnertial 8: Augn~entedInertial
Navigation (From [Martin, 19861 with prrmissiot~,kom Littoti)
Sec. 5.7 btemal Naulgation Aids 215

mechanization has a lower cost than the unaided one. This is not true for stellar-
aided systems which cost considerably more than an unaided INS.
Advantage of Augmented Position-Velocity Inertial. The advantages of aug-
mented position-velocity inertial mechanization include: multibackup modes; pro-
tection against spoofing o r position; rate-aid for position sensor; good dynamic
response; in-flight startup and alignment; and bounded position, velocity, and head-
ing errors. When an augmented inertial mechanization is no longer self-contained.
that is, it requires external cooperation, its dominant disadvantage is its susceptibility
to RF noise and propagation errors.

5.7.2 Global Positioning System (GPS)

Among the current generation of positioning and navigation aids, it is perhaps GPS
coupled with newer and better-designed field-qualified receivers that provide un-
precedented positioning and navigation capability.

Requirements. The objective of a GPS is to develop a worldwide precision

navigation system based on satellites so that it can be applied to all classes of military
and possibly commercial operations with an accuracy of 25 ft in three dimensions.
In conjunction with other systems, a GPS, with its precise position, velocity, and
time is very versatile and is applicable to a variety of air, land, and sea services and
operations. GPS will be an integral part of future navigation systems. The appli-
cations of a GPS include: time transfer; range instrumentation; geodesy and survey;
antisubmarine warfare; launch vehicle guidance improvement; mine and sensor de-
livery; missile inertial system updating; field artillery and shore bombardment; close
support and common grid coordination; riverine and small-craft operations; land
vehicle navigation; enroute nautical and aeronautical navigation; VTOL, STOL, and
helicopter takeoff, landing and cruise operations; and photomapping, phototargeting
coordinate bombing.

GPS overview. GPS is a space-based radionavigation system which is func-

tionally divided into the space, control, and user segments. The space segment
consists of a constellation of navigation signal time and range (NAVSTAR) satellites.
A full constellation will have 21 satellites plus 3 active spares. They will be uniformly
distributed in 6 orbit planes, providing 4 to 7 visible satellites at any time anywhere
on earth. The planes are inclined 55 deg with respect to the equatorial plane. The
orbital altitude is 10,890 nautical mi. NAVSTAR measures range to a set of four
satellites in 12-hour orbits, by timing the arrival of radio signals transmitted from
the satellites at precisely known times. Theoretically, a minimum of only three
satellites would allow a fix to be obtained but since three satellites may not always
be in suitable positions, and because timing errors in the receiving system have to
be eliminated, a fourth satellite is necessary [Barnes, 19871. Each satellite trarismits
specially coded signals that allow individual satellites to be distinguished, and the
216 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

range and rate of range change to the user to be measured. The signals are pseudo-
random binary noise codes (PRN). T w o different codes are transmitted in phase
cluadrature, providing a standard positioning service (SPS) and a precise positioning
service (PPS). A low-rate data message is also transmitted. T h e control segment
has five monitor stations that track all satellites in view of their antennas. Data are
transmitted to a master control station where processing takes place to determine
orbital and clock modeling parameters for each satellite. The information is then
uploaded to the satellites by one of three upload stations. The satellites incorporate
this information into the data message.
The user segment consists of equipment designed to receive and process the
satellite signals. The unique codes transmitted by each satellite allow the use of
common RF carrier frequencies throughout the constellation, a process known as
code division multiplexing. Measurements from four satellites are required in the
general case. The United States Department of Defense has developed two classes
of receiver, continuous tracking and sequential tracking. The continuous tracking
receiver provides a dedicated channel for each satellite being tracked and a fifth
channel that performs ancillary functions (for example, ionosphere correction, in-
terchannel bias measurement). The sequential receiver has one or two channels, for
low- and medium-dynamic applications, respectively. In these receivers the channels
are time shared among satellites and housekeeping chores [McGowan, 19871.

Measurement principles. The following discussions on measurement

principles are based on McGowan [I9871 as follows.
Range Measurement. The PRN code in each satellite is reset to its initial
state precisely at midnight, Saturday (Universal Coordinated Time). The codes have
sufficient period so that no state will be repeated bctween the weekly resets. The
receivers generate a replica of the code and phaselock on it using correlation tcch-
niques. The receivcd code phase provides a dircct indication of the time of trans-
mission of the code and allows the transit time of the signal to be calculated against
a local clock. Scaling this measurement by the speed of light (c) determines the range
betwecn the user and satellite antennas. This quantity is known as pseudo-range
(PR) because it contains errors. T w o dominant error sources are the error in the
local clock (its quality is at least an order of magnitude worse than that of the satellite
clock) and atmospheric dclays suffcred by the signal.
T i m e Measurement. The mcasurcn~cntof transit time by the rcceivcr con-
tains thc bias bctwecn the satellite and uscr clocks. Since it affccts all mcasurcmcnts
cqually, it can bc cstimatcd as part of thc solution. Whcrc three 111easurcmcnts arc
nccdcd to dctcrminc thrcc position coordinatcs, a fourth allows clock bias to bc
determined.
Range Rate Measurement. During pcriods of sufficient rcccived signal qual-
ity (CINo > 29 dB), thc rcccivcr can phaselock onto the carricr. Thc Doppler shift
observed 1s uscd to dctcrm~ncthe linc-of-sight (LOS) velocity betwccn the satcllltc
and uscr. This mcasurcn~cntis implcmcnted as an integrated Doppler known as the
Sec. 5.7 External Naulgatlon AIds 217

pseudo-delta-range (I'DR), which is a measure o f the range change during the in-
tegration interval.

Performance. Table 5-1 lists the error budget for the PR measurement,
assuming that the dual-frequency ionospheric co~npensationtechnique is used. As
shown, a measurement error of 5 m is predicted. The test results indicate that the
high-frequency fluctuation of the error is less than 1 m. The error was dominated
by a bias component that ranged from 7-10 m [McGowan, 19871.

INS updating. Figure 5-34 illustrates a block diagram of a typical imple-

mentation using the GPS system as an update aid for an inertial system. Note that
the filter estimates receiver errors as well as inertial navigation errors. However,
realistic modeling of all error sources usually results in a state vector dimension that
prohibits full implementation in the vehicle computer. Trade-offs to determine the
appropriate suboptimal filter to implement are then required [Schmidt, 1976; Set-
terlund, 19861. From these performance trade-off analyses, a set of system perfor-
mance specifications can be developed prior to implementation and integration
[Schmidt, 19871.

5.7.3 Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN)

T A C A N is a two-dimensional navigation system used for piloted aircraft and is

based on generating azimuth and distance to a fixed ground station for the aircraft.
The mechanization of TACAN centers around an airborne-interrogator and ground
transponder. The flight vehicle is provided with range and bearing lines of position

TABLE 5-1 GPS PSEUDORANGE ERROR BUDGET

System budget (1)
Segment Error mechanism meters

Space Segment Clock Stability

Track Perturbations
Other
Segment RSS
Control Segment Ephermeris Prediction and Modeling
Other
Segment RSS
User Segment Ionospheric Delay
Tropospheric Delay
Receiver Noise/Resolution
Multipath Interference
Other
Segment RSS
System RSS

From [McGowan, 19871 with permission from AGARD

 Inertial Navlgatlon Chap. 3

Uncorrected
nOviVion
vorlo ICS ~ovigationcorrections

pseudoronge
and pseudo
delta range
Figure 5-34 Aided Inertial-GPS Mechanization (Reprinted with permission jot11
(Schmidt, Systems fi Control Enrydopedio), Copyrishr (1987), Pergemort Press P L C )

by a ground transponder which uses a nearly pulse type of transmission for range1
bearing loci measurements. It operates on a frequency in the L-band (1.0-GHz)
range, and has an operational range of 150 N M (LOS) at an altitude of 15,000 ft.
It has an accuracy that is on the order of 200-1,500 ft in range/(bounded) radial
position error and 0.5 deg-1.0 deg (100 ft/NM) in bearing/(bounded) angular po-
sition error. The resolution is approximately 100 ft in range and 0.5 deg in heading.
It is the bandwidth that limits the range resolution to 100 ft, while the L-band
frequency and the beamwidth of the transponder antenna limits the bearing reso-
lution. In Figure 5-35a, it is seen that the angular position error is 10,000 ft at 100
NM, corresponding to the bearing accuracy mentioned earlier. O n e way to over-
come the large angular position error is to go to a dual-TACAN mechanization.
By implementing a ~ U ~ ~ - T A CsystemA N or range-range mechanization, the po-
sition error is reduced to 500 ft (CEP), as illustrated in Figure 5-35b [Martin, 19861.

TACAN advantages and limitations. Advantages of T A C A N include

excellent enroutelhoming navigation aid, and accurate range and bearing over short
distances. Furthermore, it is amenable to fixed and mobile (that is, ships) ground
stations. One of the limitations of TACAN is that it is not a navigation system and
thus requires a heading device. In addition, it is not sclf-contained because it requires
a radiating ground station. At long ranges, its cross-track errors are large. There
are also limitations on its LOS, which require aircraft to fly high in mountainous
regions and for long-range measurements. There is a disadvantage in the fact that
radiation from the aircraft can be detected during military OPS. T A C A N is also
subject to natural and enemy environments as well as to ground maintenance ell-
Sez. 5.7 External Navigation Aids 218

OPERATIONAL RANGE 150 NM (LO9 AlRCRAFl AT 15,000 FT ALT.

RADIAL POSITION ERROR (BOUNDED) 200 - 1500 FT
ANGULAR POSITION ERROR (BOUNDED) LO0 ( - 100 FTINM)

I TACAN STATION

ACAN STATION R

Figure 5-35 (a) TACAN Characteristics (b) Dual TACAN Capability Reduces
Large TACAN Cross Track Position Errors (From [Martin, 19861 with permission
from Litton)
220 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

vironment, Due to the earth's curvature, as the range to the T A C A N station in,
creases, so must the altitude of the flight vehicle increase. A relationship between
the TACAN range and the altitude of the flight vehicle is given in Figure 5-36.

5.7.4 Long-Range Navigation (LORAN)

LORAN is a time-difference of arrival system that requires one master and at least
two slave ground stations that transmit radiation to the flight vehicle. Like TACAN
it is a two-dimensional system. The transmission of the ground station is approx-
imately in the form of 8 or 16 pulsed (groups) at 10 KHz PRF, entailing measure-
ments of hyperbolic loci of position provided by pulse envelope and phase difference.
It has an operating frequency of nearly 100 KHz and an accuracy that is on the order
of 50-500 ft or more, contingent upon the geometric dilution of precision (GDOP).
The resolution of the transmission is approximately 0.01 psec X GDOP.

LOBAR characteristics. LORAN characteristics are depicted in Figure

5-37a, which include an operational range of 600-1,000 N M on land and 1,000-
1,500 N M over water and a radial position error of approximately 300-500 ft in
the primary zone. The radial position error is the region of interception of the
M-S#l line of position (LOP) (see Figure 5-37b), and the M-S#2 LOP as given
in Figure 5-37a. M-S#1 and M-S#2 LOP are hyperbolic curves between M-S#l
and M-S#2, respectively. The hyperbolic LOP is constructed based on the receiving
time (that is, range) difference measurements between the master station and the
slave station.

LORAN advantages and limitations. Advantages of LORAN include

simplicity and reliability of airborne units, accurate medium-range navigation aid,
and nonradiation of passive receiver. There are some limitations and disadvantages
associated with LORAN, one of which is that radiating ground stations are required
for LORAN. In addition. LORAN, like TACAN, is subiect " to natural and enemy
environments as well as to ground maintenance environments. Also, like TACAN,
LORAN is not a full navigation system and needs to be augmented with heading,
velocity, and altitude. Its performance is reduced by the GDOP. The long smoothing
circuits of LORAN require low dynamics during measurement or rate aid to main-
tain accuracy/track.

5.7.5 Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM)

TERCOM is a form of correlation guidance based on a comparison between the

measured and the prestored features ofthe profile of the ground (terrain) over which
a missile or aircraft is flying. Generally, terrain height forms the basis of this com-
parison. Obtaining the reference data requires prior measurement of the ground
contours of interest. This type of guidance is used for updating a midcourse inertial
guidance system on a periodic basis, and has been applicd to the guidance of cruise
222 Inertial Naulgatlon Chap. 5

missiles, which usually fly at subsonic speeds and fairly constant altitude [Heaston
and Smoots, 19831.
A TERCOM system uses an airborne altimeter and a data processor to correlate
the measured terrain contours with the prestored contours to obtain the best estimate
of position. The transmission characteristics of the airborne altimeter include an
operating frequency of approximately 4.4 GHz (incidental to operation) and a trans-
mission type that is pulsed or CW. As the missile flies, the radar altimeter first
measures the variations in the ground's
- ~rofile.These measured variations are then
digitized and processed for input to a correlator for comparison with stored data.
High-density digital storage permits large quantities of data to be stored, and modern
microprocessors allow the comparison to be done sufficiently and quickly [Barnes,
19871. Through this process, the missile can determine its position and correct any
errors that have developed since the previous update. Accuracy is 100-1,000 ft and
resolution is 100-200 ft. Figure 5-38 illustrates the basic concept employed by
TERCOM. The terminal guidance stage may bebased on the final TERCOM update
and a preprogrammed course relying on the inertial system, or a separate terminal
homing seeker may be employed that can recognize the target and provide the final
guidance commands [Heaston and Smoots, 19831. The block diagram shown in
Figure 5-39 shows the mechanization of the TERCOM system.

OPERATIONAL RANGE @XI- 1OOO N M (LAND)

SLAVE X2
RADIAL POSITION ERROR lOCKl - 1500 NM (WATER) STATION
-300 - 500 FT (PRIMARY ZONE)
SLAVE I1,
STAT ION

MASTER
STAT l ON
(A)

Figure 5-37 (a) LORAN Characteristics (b) LORAN Lines o f Position ( a ) j o m

[Martin, 19861 with permission j o m Liftot~( b ) courfesy 0jF.U'. Hardy, 1986)
Sec. 5.7 external Navlgatlon Alds

(B)
Figure 5-37 (Continued)

TERCOM advantages and limitations. The advantages of TERCOM

include total automation of its operation, accurate position location with a good
heading device, and self-contained operation requiring no external support. The
 224 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

Cruise Cruise
Missile Elevation Map
Stored In Onboard
Computer

Terrain Terrain Mapped

Previously

Guidance

Update

T A R G E T AREA

OPERATING RANGE - UNLIMITED (COMPUTfR CAPACITY1

RADIAL POSITION ERROR - ZW - % FEnI

Figure 5-38 (a) Terrain Corltour

Matching (b) T E R C O M ~haracteristics
((aJjom /Heaston and Smoors, 198.71 lr'irh
prrmissiot~j o m GACIAC (b)jottr /hlnr.ritlt
19861 with prrmission j o m Lirrorr)
Sez. 5.7 External Navigation Aids

Data Recommended
Cornlation Flight Path AutopiSol
4
h I
Figure 5-39 TERCOM Mechanization

limitations of TERCOM are as follows. TERCOM requires varying-altitudc tcrrain

and a radiating altimeter. Moreover, thc prestored maps must be obtained, gen-
erated, and programmed in advance. In order for the updating tcchnique described
earlier to perform properly, there must be sufficient variation in the terrain to gen-
erate a usable signal. Obviously, such a system will not work over water. It may
have difficulty in the midwestern region of the United States where the ground is
very flat. Therefore, consideration must be given to the terrain surrounding the
target when employing this type of guidance. The data collected for the reference
map will provide the information necessary to predetermine if the system will work
in the areas of interest [Heaston and Smoots, 19831.

5.7.6 Doppler Radar

Doppler radar on an aircraft provides a measure of the aircraft's velocity relative to

the earth. It usually consists of four beams, one forward, one aft, one to port, and
one to starboard. They are all angled downward at a 45-deg to 60-deg angle. The
fore and aft beams measure velocity along the track heading of the aircraft, while
the left and right beams measure cross-heading velocity. All four beams measure
vertical velocity. The Doppler set measures velocity in aircraft axes. The INS, or
sometimes an AHRS, provides the reference coordinate system for resolving the
Doppler velocity components onto along-track and cross-track axes or onto earth-
fixed axes.

Doppler advantages and limitations. Doppler radar has the advantage

of being autonomous; it does not require any ground-based or space-based facilities.
Because it does not have its own attitude reference, it must always be used as an
adjunct to an INS or an AHRS. The Doppler return signal over water is poor due
to more specular and less diffuse reflection off the surface. In addition, the scattering
cells on the water surface may be moving due to currents or wind-blown spray.
For this reason Doppler radars usually have two modes, one for land and one for
over water. This landlsea switch can be used to reduce the amount of feedback gains
to the INS during over-water operations.

5.7.7 Star Trackers

Astro-inertial systems consist of a telescope mounted in two gimbals, azimuth1

elevation, which in turn are mounted directly onto an inertial system. The systems
in operational use today are integrated into a !gimballed inertial system. This means
226 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

that the whole system must include at least five gimbals: the pitch, roll, and azimuth
gimbals of the inertial system plus the azimuth and elevation gimbals of the stellar
telescope. Consequently, these systems tend to be quite large and expensive. Con-
ceptually, the gimballed inertial system could be replaced by a strapdown inertial.
thereby reducing the size of the overall system. T o date, however, this development
is still in the early stages of design.
The basic idea of the astro-inertial system is as follows. Given the position of
the aircraft from the inertial system, the computer looks up the ephemeris data for
a particular star from the star catalog contained in its memory, and calculates the
azimuth and elevation angles for that star at that time. It then drives the telescope
to those angles and looks for the star. If the star is off the axis of the telescope, the
star tracker provides correction signals to center the star on the telescope axis. These
same azimuth and elevation correction signals go the inertial system as psi-angle
corrections (see Figure 5-10).
One such star fix can update two attitude error components. For a full three-
axis update, the telescope is driven to another star, widely separated in angle from
the first, and the process is repeated.

Star tracker advantages and limitations. Like inertial and Doppler

systems, the star tracker is autonomous, requiring no outside facilities, except of
course for the stars whlch are always there. Cloud cover is an obvious limitation
for star trackers, and this relegates their usefulness to high-altitude flight. Because
it is a psi-angle measuring device, it basically updates the gyros and not the accelero-
meters. (Recall that the psi equations are independent of the acceleration equations.)
This means that acceleration errors can grow without bound. The astro-inertial
system will simply apply a tilt error to compensate for the position error; it cannot
distinguish between the two. However, with an occasional position fix or with
Doppler radar updating, the integrated system can produce a navigation system
with bounded errors over very long periods of time.

5.7.8 Kalman Filtering

In order to combine the INS data with one or more of the foregoing augmentations,
most modern avionics systems use a Kalman filter (KF). The KF is a linear feedback
system with time-varying gains. The gains are varied in an optimal or nearly optilnal
fashion so as to take account of the relative accuracy of the INS and the updating
measurements as well as the geometry of the measurements. Because the accuracy
of the INS varies with time, the KF must include an error model of the INS. This
error model includes a number of error states, the dynamic coupling betwccn these
states, and the noise which drives these states. A similar but simpler error model
for the measurement noise allows the KF to properly weight the feedback gains to
the INS.
The feedback corrections themselves may be applied in two different ways,
One is called open-loop correction, and the other is called closed-loop correctioll,
Sec. 5.7 External Naulgatlon Aids 227

In the first, the corrcctions are added to the INS outputs and do not affect the
operation of the INS itself. Figure 5-40 illustrates such a mechanization. The ad-
vantage of this type of mechanization is that spurious measurements affect only the
corrected INS outputs and not the INS itself. If the KF diverges as a result o f these
spurious updates, the INS is still operational, and the system can recover by rein-
itializing the KF. The disadvantage of the open-loop KF is that the state errors in
the error model arc not driven to zcro and can become large enough for nonlinearity
effects to disrupt the system operation.
In thc closed-loop feedback system, the feedback corrcctions actually correct
the INS itself so as to maintain the INS state crrors near zcro. This eliminates the
nonlinearity concerns. O n the other hand, spurious updates can drive the INS so
far off that it may not be able to recover.

Kalman filtering approach. A standard Kalman filter minimizes the

state-vector variance and estimates the state errors. The Kalrnan filter is constructed
based on an error model, as mentioned previously. First, an INS model and a mea-
surement model arc given as
jc = .4.u + lu (INS) E[ru(t)] = 0, E[~(~)Iu(T = ) Q6(t
] - 7)
Z = Hs + v (measurement) E[v(t)] = 0, E[v(I)v(T)] = R6(t - T)
INCREMENTAL ERROR ESTIMATES
I I
SENSOR
SUBSYSTEM

SUBSYSTEM
SENSOR ERROR SUBSYSTEM
SUBSYSTEM ESTIMATES
-c tl - CORRECTED OUTPUT
ERROR 1
MEASUREMENT
ERROR
VARIABLE
DIFFERENCES MATRIX

SENSOR SUBSYSTEM OUTPUT

SUBSYSTEM
RATIONAL

SUBSYSTEM SUBSYSTEM
ERROR CORRECTED
OUTPUT
ERROR

Figure 5-40 Generalized Mechanization of Filtering Open-Loop Error Control

System (From ['Martin, 19861 with permissionfrom Lirton)
228 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

where x is the error state with X E R ~ ,and w and v are white noises. The measurement
z can be a combination of attitude, velocity, o r position measurements. If position
measurement is available, position error 6, must be included in the state vector x,
An example application of error-covariance analysis to inertial platform errors
is constructed as illustrated in Figure 5-41. As presented in Chapter 4 (Sections 4.1
and 4.2), the fiow diagram in Figure 5-41 [Tucker and Stern, 19861 can be con..
structed, with v = a as the input. From this figure, it is seen that there are nine
error state variables: three position errors, one along each of the coordinate axes;
three corresponding velocity errors; and three misalignment errors, one about each
of the coordinate axes. The velocity errors are obtained by integrating the accel-
eration error inputs, and the position errors are obtained by a second integration.
In addition, the misalignment error about any axis leads to an additional acceleration
input along each of the other two axes. The resulting dynamics matrix (A) from
Figure 5-41 is as follows: -

I
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-k? 0 0 0 0 0 0 a28 a29
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 k 0 0 0 a47 0 049
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 kz 0 aj7 ass 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*
Examination of the A matrix and the flov,. diagram in Figurc 5-41, howcver, in-
dicates that the systcm can bc decoupled into three indcpcndcnt subsystems, cach
of dimension four. For example, states 1, 2, 8, and 9 form a subsystem. It IS noted
that cach of thc misalignment error states 7, 8, and 9 feed into two of the three
subsystems, but this does not cause any direct coupling among the subsystcms, since
there are no feedback inputs into the misalignrncnt states. T h e four-dimensional
problem for states 1, 2, 8, and 9 is of the form

5.7.9 Kalman Filtering Performance

For conventional filtering, the position error (in ft) ncvcr converges to zcro, as shown
in Figure 5-42a. For Kalman filtcring (optimal filtcring), on the other hand, the
position error (in ft) convcrgcs to, but ncvcr rcachcs, zcro, as shown in Figure
5-4%. Figure 5-42c displays a table showing thc relationship of mechanization and
performance.
 Sec 5.8 Integrated Inertial Navigation System (IINS)

9 x Position n2 - x velocity n7 ' misalignment about x-axis

n3 = y Position n4 = y velocity nB = misalignment about y-axis
n5 = z position n6 = z velocity ng - misalignment about z-axis

Figure 5-41 Flow Diagram (From [Tucker and Stern, 19861 with permission from
AACC)

INTEGRATED INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEM (IINS)

When inertial systems were first included as part of the avionics package on aircraft
circa 1960, they performed only the navigation function. Typically, there would
also be an AHRS for driving the flight instruments, and there would be rate gyros
230 Inertial Naulgatlon Chap. 3

CONVENT lONAL OPTlMAL (KALMAN)

FlLTER FILTER
(A) (B)

'HARS - BOUNDED loHCADING, DG PIHRFRfE. VG 1 8 1 ~ ~

Figure 5-42 (a) & (b) Integrated Performance (c) Augme~~red Navigation Per-
formance Summary (From /Manin, 19861 ulith pcrmir~ionJiom Lirrotr)
Sec. 5.8 Integrated Inertlal Naulgatlon System (IINS) 231

for flight control sensors. Gradually, as the INS became more reliable they began
to take over the AHRS functions. Then as the strapdown INS came into being,
their use for flight control became a real possibility.
In order for the INS to be part of the flight control system (FCS), it must be
made ultra reliable. This leads to the design of multiplcly redundant INS. Such
systems, properly updatcd, can providc reliable and accurate position, velocity, and
attitudc for the navigation function, as well as body-axis accelerations and attitudc
rates for the FCS. Such systems are called intcgratcd inertial navigation systems
(IINS). Only strapdown INS arc candidates for IINS, because the gimballcd INS
cannot providc the attitude rates for the FCS with a wide enough bandwith.

5.8.1 Integrated SensinglFIight Control Reference

System (ISFCRS)

One way to improve the reliability of the INS is to employ redundant sensors, as
in the case of an integrated sensinglflight control reference system (ISFCRS). The
ISFCRS uses six ring laser gyros and accelerometers in an arrangement of two
orthogonal triads, onc of which has its axes aligned with the flight vehicle's body
axis. The geometry is depicted in Figure 5-43.
The sensors are numbered from 1 to 6 with 1, 2, and 3 corresponding to the
x-, y-, and z-axes of the body aligned unit, and 4, 5, and 6 corresponding to the
x-, y-, and z-axes of the skewed unit. A functional block diagram of an ISFCRS is
presented in Figure 5-44. The ISFCRS contains signal selection, lever arm com-
pensation, and parity equations. The ISFCRS was proposed for the MFCRS and
MIRA systems that provide all required incrtial reference and air data in advanced
transport and fighter aircraft for flight control, navigation, weapon delivery and
targeting, terminal area functions, automatic TFITA, sensorltracker stabilization,
flight instruments, and displays, as illustrated in Figure 5-45. Figure 5-46 shows
a conventional approach of comparison with MIRA [Boggess, 1986; Young et al.,
19831.

5.8.2 Integrated Sensory Subsystem (ISS)

Detailed discussions of the integrated sensory subsystem (ISS) presented in this

example can be found in Toolan and Grobert [1983]. The ISS is composed of three
major elements. The first element consists of the various sensors/sensory data and
preprocessing electronics. The second element is a redundant I 1 0 system which
provides data transfer between the sensors/transducers and redundant computers.
The third ISS element is the data handling system (DHS) contained within the
redundant digital computers in which redundancy data management and output
parameter calculations are performed. The ISS sensor set consists of redundant
skewed arrays of strapdown integrating rate gyros and accelerometers, redundant
air data probes and transducers, magnetic heading reference sensors, radio aids, and
command inputlsurface position transducers. A system-level block diagram of the
232 Ineriial Navigation Chap. 5

Figure 5-43 ISFCRS Geometry

ISS DHS is shown in Figure 3-47a. The skewed and dispersed gyros and acceler-
ometers supply raw input data to the DHS. The DHS removes the vehicle bending
and kinematic effects and provides orthogonal rate and acceleration data to the
SAHRS (strapdown AHRS) algorithms, the FCS, and the user systems. The six
gyros and six accelerometers are configured in a symmetrical conical array and
provide a 2-fail operational sensor capability. In addition, the sensors are dispersed
to assure a survivable system. The ISS design philosophy for inertial sensor pack-
aging and dispersion for survivability permits installation o f gyros and accclero-
meters in less than ideal locations with respect to bending nodeslantinodes and the
aircraft center of gravity. Without appropriate compensation generated by the use
o f a state estimator, the sensor locations can result in FCSIbending-mode coupling
andlor nuisance trips of the RDM failure detection routines. The configuration of
the gyro and accclerometer RDM routines and the state estimator is shown in Figure
5-47b.

5.8.3 Integrated Inertial Sensing Assembly (IISA)

Another type o f IINS is the IISA. This is an integrated inertial sensing assct1lbJ~
(IISA) that uses six ring-laser gyros and six inertial-grade accelcromcters in two,
separated clustcrs. It is a system that is well suited to the combined navigatioll and
flight control sensing needs of modern high-performance fly-by-wire vchiclcs. The
background of integrated navigationlflight control sensors is given by Ebncr and
Wei [1984]. Krasnjanski and Ebncr [1983], and Jar~kovitzct al. 119871 includillg a
spectrum of possible system configurations as a function of avionics redundancy
234 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

I
I

iI
I
?-={
I
I

MILSTD.1553A
USERS
Right Control
Navigation
Fire Control
Weapon Delivery & Trajectory
Sensorhcker Stabilization
NAV Axis
I Cockpit Display
I
L --- I
-l
Figure 5-45 MlRA System

requirements. Within each inertial navigation assembly (INA), sensor axes are or-
thogonal but skewed relative to the vehicle yaw axis, as shown in Figure 5-482,
One accelerometer and one gyro in an INA are oriented along each skewed axis.
Each of the three channels is largely independent, as shown in Figure 5-48b. Figure
5-48a also depicts the orientation of axes when the INA is installed into the left
equipment bay of the vehicle. When an identical INA is installed into the right
equipment bay, with 180-deg rotation about yaw relative to the left INA, the six
sensor axes are then distributed uniformly about a 54.7-deg half-angle cone. No
two axes are coincident, nor are three in the same plane. Thus, any three sensors
may be used to derive three-axis outputs in vehicle axes after suitable computer
transformation. The IISA development uses high-reliability laser gyro and acceler-
ometer sensors packaged in a strapdown system configuration to provide a common,
efficient source of aircraft body rates, attitude, and accelerations. These measure-
ments provide the essential inertial data inputs for all core and mission avionic
functions including stability control and stability augmentation system (CSAS). The
IISA (Figure 5-48c) consists of five assemblies: two identical INAs containing the
inertial sensors and navigation computers (shown in Figure 5-48d); two identical
digital computer assemblies (DCAs) each containing dual redundant flight control
redundancy management and sensor selection logic computers; and a multifunction

L User

k Air Data
Figure 5-46 Conventional ~ p p r o a c ~
to Sensing and Flight Control Referellce
System
 ORTHWWAL OW111
RAT1b UtR
ACCIL DATA FIST#MS

PITCH L ROLL

IU OAT A
HANDLINO
SYSTEM

DELIVERY

INTEORATID
N A V SVSTEM

CONTROL
SYSTEM

SKEWLD
OVROS -- - AIRCRAFT
DYNAMICS
I
ACCEL8

IEXTRAPOLATED EENDlNG ACCELERATIONS1

I I

SKEWED
ACCELERWETER
USE EXTRAPOLATED ESTIMATES
TO REMOVE BENDINO
ACCELERATIONS
USE GYRO RDMS OUTPUT 6
EXTRAPOLATED ROTATIONAL
ACCELERATION ESTIMATES
TO REMOVE KINEMATIC
p-r-4 ACCELEROMETER

ACCELERATIONS

7 ESTIMATOR
-TE t+ TO SAHRS 6
CONTROL L A M

PITCH 6 ROLL
ATTITUDE
FROM SAHRS

ELBP

USE EXTRAPOLATED
ESTIMATES TO REMOVE
BENDINO RATES

I 1

1 IEXTRAPOLATED BENDING RATE ESTIMATES1

(B)

Figure 5-47 (a) Inertial System Block Diagram (b) Inertial Sensor RDM (From [Toolan and
Groberf, 19831, 0 1983 IEEE)
 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

control display unit (CDU) for displaying IISA data and providing the operator
interface for initializatior~and mode selection.

Configuration of sensor locations. Table 5-2 is a comparison of con-

figuration and attitude/velocity redundancy for the IISA. T h e four different system
configurations with variable levels of attitude/velocity redundancy are described as
follows [Ebncr and Wci, 19841. (1) Configuration 1 assumes that neither attitude
nor velocity is required for flight safety. The INS can be nonskewed relative to
aircraft pitchlrolllyaw axes for minimum size. A companion unit would be required
 Sec 5.8 Integrated Inertial Naulgatfon System (IINS)

INA

NAY
ILICIRONIC~
MILStD-IS538
-- N A V TO * I C

- --
3 RLOS 1014 Hx
rcro AIC(MH.,

-
3 ACCtU d,
3 HVPS
3 fC ILICTRONICS
PRoClssoR =- +-(I

PC T O A I C (80 Ha)

DCA

INA
---
A
3 RLOS
3 ACCIU
3 HVPS
-
a DCA

PROCESSOR -
-- - -,I

-I,
- rc TO AIC (80 HZ)

-
3 PC I L I C I R O N I C S

NAV
c rcc TO AIC POHZ)

tLtCIRONIU - - - - N A V TO AIC

(C)

INSTALL

Figure 5-48 (a) IISA Sensor Orientation (b) INA Functional Block Diagram (c) IISA Func-
tional Block Diagram (d) INA Installation Configuration (a) G. ( c ) j o m [Krasnjanski and Ebner,
19831, O 1983 IEEE (b) G. ( d ) j o t n uankovitz yr al., 19871 with permissionjotn AGARD)
238 Inertial Navigation Chap, 5

TABLE 5-2

Config
CONP'IGURATION VS. ATTITUDEWELOCITY REDUNDANCY
Attitude
redundancy
Velocity
redundancy Unit 1 Unit 2
-
1 None None INS (nonskew) Sensors only (skew)
-
2 Dual None INS (nonskew) SD AHRS (skew)
3 Dual Dual INS (skew)
4 Quad

From [Ebner and Wei, 19841, O 1984 AlAA

Quad INS (3NS+lS) INS (3 N S + IS)
-
containing three gyros and three accelerometers, skewed relative to the INS axes
s o that n o t w o are coincident and three are not in the same plane. (2) Configuration
2 would be virtually identical to configuration 1 except that a computer is added to
unit 2 to solve the strapdown equations in order t o derive the aircraft attitude and
heading. (3) Configuration 3 consists basically o f t w o identical INS (skew) to provide
the required fail-operationlfail-operationifail-safe (FO-FO-FS) angular rate and ac-
celeration outputs, that is, dual attitude and navigation outputs. (4) FO-FO-FS nav-
igation can be achieved by adding one gyro and one accelerometer to each INS.
Since the four sensors within an INS are bolted together rigidly, with proper ge-
ometry good navigation can be achieved using any three of thc four.
Among the four configurations, configuration 3 is commonly used for re-
dundancy. For this configuration, thc sensors are contained in t w o INA, each of
which provides full, independent incrtial navigation outputs.

Effect of gyro dither. Basically, IISA utilizes ring laser gyros that dcpcnd
on a small amount of angular mechanical dither motion to avoid lock-in between
C W and C C W lascrs to achieve full navigation accuracy. This mcchanical dither
produces accelerations sensed by the acccleronlcters. If nonlinearitics occur some-
where in the proccss, diffcrent frcqucncics bctwectl gyro dithers o r aliasing with
the sampling frequcncy can causc low-frequency beats to occur on acccleration out-
puts that could enter the FCS and causc wander or actuator flutter. The acccleration
output from thc actual operational IlSA hardware with gyro dithcring is random
with a noise arnplitudc of 0.05 ftlsec' (less than 2 milli - g) [Ebner and Wei, 19841.

Redundancy management. Redundancy managcmcnt providcs FO-

FO-FS opcration through the usc of parity cquations which lincarly conlbinc the
sensor outputs to dctcrminc thc residual crrors. Thc opcration scqucncc of rcdun-
dancy managcmcnt is givcn in Figure 5-49a. Thc six axcs of skcwcd angular rate
and accclcration arc sent to an cxtcrnal computcr for redundancy managcmcnt pro-

~ -
Figure 5-49 (a) Itcdundancy Management Operation (b) Trajrrtory Flow Chart
and System Response Sinlulator (c) I'arity Flow Chart and llesign Equation Sinl-
. f i ~ n A C A R D ( h ) G (0fro111
ulator (a) .font Oankovirz rr a/.. 1Y87/ luirh prn~~issiotl
/Ebttrr and Wri, 19841, 0 I984 A I A A )
 SlWSql DATA

0 OYRO AND A C C U R O U T S B SELF-TfST

o I/O A V A I L U I L R I
,o D Y X L X C E I 0 N A B L I : I E S S
I
1

o i s taurrrons
o ISOLATE 2 S x n a t A N E o u s FAILORES
o RAPID DETECTION mon UNFILTERED omms
0 FILTERED OUTPUTS MR P E R W N I FAIL-
O SELF-ADJOSTING TRIP E E L S

( SENSOR SELECTION
+I 1
o SENSOR PERCORCUNCL INDEX
o RESULTS
-0 USE BEST 3 OR 4 SENSORS

o 29 COI4BINATIOll WJATIONS
0 LEAST SQULRE CSTItiATE FOR I) SEXSORS I
1
h I G 8 T CONTROL OUTPUTS
(A)

1 INA-1
TRAJECTORY I
I

u I
SYSTEM
DYNAMICS MODEL

I
G EFFECT
I
a
GYRO DESIGN EQUATION

LEVER ARM
COMPENSATION

? I l
ERRORMODEL

I I ACCELEROMETER
PARITY

I QUANTIZATION
FILTER ANDSAMPLER

I
ACCELEROMETER DESIGN
EQUATION I
240 Inertial Navigation Chap.

cessing to derive body-axis rates and acceleration, free from the effects of any tx~,
hard or soft sensor failures. The redundancy management consists of parity equa-
tions, sensor selection logic, and design equations. The parity equations ensure
detection of up to three sensor failures by comparison of redundant sensor data.
Sensor errors above a predetermined level (threshold) are defined as failures. Because
of information limitations, a third sensor failure of the same type can be detected
but not compensated. Sensor selection logic considers the state of all the parity
equations and determines which sensors are to be used to derive angular rate and
acceleration outputs. Based on selected sensors, design equations are used in Ebner
and Wei [I9841 to derive the required outputs, removing skew angles and accounting
for redundant data where applicable.
Citing Jankovitz et al. [1987], realistic simulations have been performed, to
evaluate the effects of factors such as vibration isolators, antialiasing filters, and
misalignments on the redundancy management process. The redundancy manage-
ment simulator consists of the following three programs: trajectory simulator, sys-
tem response simulation, and parity and design equation simulator. The trajectory
and system response simulator for trajectory and system response simulation are
illustrated in Figure 5-49b. The system dynamic model in this figure is based on
the sensor assembly model that results from rigid body dynamics, including effects
of vibration isolators and gyro dither mechanisms. The input excitation is obtained
from the trajectory sin~ulator[Ebner and Wei, 19841. The parity and design equation
simulator is flowcharted in Figure 5-49c.

IlSA performance. Following Jankovitz et al. [1987], the performance

requiremcnts arc:
Radial position error rate 1 nmiihr (1.852 kmlhr) (CEP)
Velocity errors, per axis 3 ftlsec (91.44 cmlsec) (rms)
Reaction time 5 min
The specified accuracy of outputs to the FCS follows. Actual accuracy will be sig-
nificantly better since the outputs are derived from inertial navigation grade sensors:

Angular rate Accclcration

Scale factor
Bias
Alignn~etit
llcsolutioi~
Range 4(X) drciscc 20 g

Error sources. The primary sources of error associated with llSA follow.
(1) Axis alignt~~cr~remor: Achieving the 1-2 arc scc axis alignment stability needed,
if a significant portion of flights is to contain tcrrain avoidance and cvasivc n~ancu-
vcring, rcquircs very careful design. (2) Atcelcratint~scale factor stability: Skewing 0f
Sec 5.8 Integrated Inertlal Naulgatlon System (IINS) 241

accelerometer axes requires that accelerometer scale factor stability be signifcantly

better than for a nonskewcd configuration. (3) It~putaxis bending: Input axis bending
is the major error source for strapdown navigators in a vibration environment. (4)
Data synchronization: 1mportant.considerations for flight control are the time delays
and synchronization of data from the IISA when used as part of a digital FCS
controlling the states of an aircraft in real time. Data sampling and processing time
delays in the sensor clement have a destabilizing effect in an aircraft control system
and must be carefully selected. (3) Noise andfilterittg: Modern FCSs are digital, and
sensor data are sampled at some fixed frequency. for example, 80 Hz for modern
fighter aircraft. Sensor noise or vibration inputs at high frequencies can be aliased
by the sampling process to a frequency within the flight-control bandwidth, causing
control surface flutter or pilot discomfort.
In light of the preceding error sources, extensive laboratory testing of the
system must be undertaken to insure that IISA is suitable for installation and flight
test in a flight vehicle. These tests are described in detail Uankovitz et a]., 19871,
which examines IISA system performance for navigation and flight control.

5.8.4 Helicopter Integrated Inertial Navigation

System (HIINS)

Fingerote et al. [I9871 present the subject of HIINS, including the following dis-
cussions on accuracy requirements as they relate to configuration 1 shown in Figure
5-50. The roles of the military maritime helicopter include search and rescue, an-
tisurface surveillance and targeting (ASST), antisubmarine warfare (ASW), and an-
tiship missile defense (ASMD). Many of the missions must be carried out at ultra-
low altitudes under all weather and visibility conditions. The increased range, speed,
and accuracy of modern weapon systems impose stringent accuracy and reliability
requirements on the aircraft navigation system.

Accuracy requirements. In view of the often dangerous missions that

must be carried out, the small crew of the helicopter must not be burdened with
monitoring the functioning of, or updating, the navigation system. Consideration
of these factors has led to the following accuracy requirements.

1. Radial position error (95 percent), with external aids = 2.0 nautical mi (nm),
and without external aids = 1.5 nmlhr.
2. Radial velocity error (95 percent), with external aids = 3.0 ftlsec, and without
external aids = 4.0 ftlsec.
3. Attitude error (95 percent), with or without external aids = 0.5 deg.
4. Heading error (95 percent), with o r without external aids = 0.5 deg.

Another similar requirement proposed by Hassenpflug and Baumker [I9871 is listed

in Table 5-3. Comparing with the preceding requirements, it is seen that the ac-
 Inertial Nauigation Chap. 5

Inertial Navigation

+ Data Bus
MIL-STD-1553B

(h4ILSTD-1750A) Reference

Figure 5-50 HIINS Configuration 1 (Front [Fingerore et a l . , 19871 with permission

jom ACARD)

TABLE 5-3 PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

Parameter Range Refresh- Accuracy (95 %)
........................................................................................
Pitch 8 -30 + 45.
rate [HZ 1
50
INS kquircmcnts
.So
HWS
.25*
Roll 6 f 90. 50 .5 * .25O
Heading
True Heading
Velocity along
:.
Vx
360.
360.
-60++400kmIh
50
50
50
.5*
.So
.5%+.25kt
.5*
.5'
.5%+.2kt
Velocity across v f50kmlh 50 .5X+ .25kt .5%+.2kt
Velocity vertical Y f l5mls 50 .6%+.2 kt .Z%+.lkt
geographic vertical z
v tl5mls 50 .6%+.2 kt TED
Ground speed v -60++400km/h 50 .5%+.25kt .5%+.25kt
Acceleration g
ax t. 5g 50 .Olg .01g
Acceleration a f.5g 50 .Olg .Olg
Acceleration Y -.5g++3.5g 50 .Olg .Olg
*z
Angu- P 100~1s 50 .25*ls .2*ls
lar 9 60n/s 50 .25@/s .2*/s
rates r LOO*ls 50 .25*ls .2*ls
Position(Enr0ute) P.P b.25 2% 1.5%
Position(N0E) P. P 6.25 300m/l/b h 25Om/1/4h
Drift 6 f90 6.25 1. .5
Wind vW O++15Okm/h 6.25 1.2m1s 1.2mIs
Direction *W f 90. 6.25 1 1'
TAS u -25++100mls 12.5 Zmls 2mIs
v f l4mls 12.5 2mIs 2mIs
w f l5mls 12.5 Imls lm/s
T e m p e r a t u r e static -45tr70aC 6.25 2*C*:T 1100: 2 * C + : T 11001
Static pressure 480t1100mb 6.25 3mE 3mE
Height above ground OIZSOOf t 50 .5m 0.5% .5m 0 .5X
Target WPT f90*/f180. 12.5 0.5nm 0.5nm
Desired T r a c k DTK 0 + 360' 6.25 1 1'
XTrack XTK t5Okmlh 6.25 I km I km
T r a c k An6le Error TKE flOO* 6.25 1 1
Roll commanded *e - t30' 6.25 0.1. 0.1'
Turnrate dqldt 10.1s 12.5 0.6'16 0.6'1s

From [Hassenpflug and Baumker. 1987) with pcrniission from AGAHI)

Sec. 5.8 Integrated Inertial Navlgatlon System (IINS) 243

curacy requirements given by this table have the same attitude and heading accuracy
requirements and slightly different position accuracy requirements.

Configuration 1. Figure 5-50 illustrates HllNS configuration 1. The rec-

omnlendcd system shown in this figure comprises an airborne processor to which
four primary subsystem/sensors are interfaced by means of a MIL-STD-l553B serial
multiplex data bus: (1) inertial navigation system (INS); ( 2 ) NAVSTARIglobal po-
sitioning system (GPS) receiver; (3) Doppler radar velocity sensor; and (4) magnetic
heading reference.
Also interfaced to the proccssor arc a radar altimeter, a T A C A N receiver, and
an air data subsystem which supplies barometric altitude and true-air spccd infor-
mation. T h e self-contained INS is a standard form-fit function (F3) inertial navi-
gation employing ring laser gyros (RLGs).

Configuration 2. Configuration 2 of HIINS (based on Hassenpflug and

Baumker, 1987) and its 110 parameter are shown respectively in Figures 5-51. The
HIINS is a heading- and velocity-augmented INS system, providing three-dimen-
sional navigation information in conjunction with a radar altimeter and calculating
the wind vector by means of a TAS system for the entire speed regime of the
helicopter. The latitude range is ?80 deg ( U T M range). Angular rates and linear
acceleration in the body-frame coordinate system for flight control and weapon
delivery purposes are supplied by the INS. The autopilot functions are supported
by the following signals:
Radar altitude h~ Inertial altitude h,
Doppler vertical velocity v , ~ Inertial vertical velocity v ,
Magnetic heading +,L, True heading +
Attitude +, 0 Body velocities v,, v,, v,
Velocities in the navigation frame VE, VN, bv
Besides calculating the present position coordinates, the following navigation func-
tions are available: (1) bearing and distance to the selected waypoint; (2) time to go
to this waypoint based on the momentary speed; (3) optimal steering information
to the selected waypoint; (4) targets of opportunity; (5) position update by flying
over known landmarks whereby the position coordinates of these landmarks are:
(a) already stored, (b) read from the map and manually inserted after freezing the
position flown over, and (c) gathered and inserted by means of a map display after
freezing the position flown over.
Figure 5-52a is another view of an integrated NAVJFCS for helicopters, a
detailed discussion of which appears in Osder [1986]. It is a double fail-operative
(fail-op2) system in which the navigation function achieves the same level of fail-
op2 performance as the flight control computers. Each flight control computer
(FCC) contains its o w n internal redundancy structures and techniques (hardware
and software) needed to detect its own faults, and achieve the required reconfigura-
tion to support the system's fail-op2 specifications. The emphasis here is on the
 Inertial Navigation Chap. 5

r---------- ------------
1 HUNS 7I
I

1I DVS
RDN 808
I
I
I
I
t - 1I -
--
Q-
II I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I mu - INS
I
,
I , ucs
II I

I
RADM
ALTII(E1ER
- *
I
I
I
I L II I
---------- -------
L
fl -----_I
DUAL MIL-BUS lSS3B

Figure 5-51 (a) HIINS Configuration 2

(b) Configuration 2 110 Parameter (Fr*m
[HasscnpJug and Baumker, 19871 with per-
mission j o m AGARD)
Sec. 5.8 integrated Inertial Nauigatlon System (IINS) 245

system architecture advantages obtained by making the navigationlflight control

sensor function an autonomous navigation subsystem by virtue of the consolidation
of sensor measurements, state estimation algorithms and self-contained reversion1
recollfiguration stratcgics. Figure 5-52c illustrates the data flow interfaces between
the integrated navigationlsensor assembly and the flight control computers and ex-
ternal sensors. The broadcast bus transmissions of flight critical data to the FCCs
are summarized in Figure 5-52d. The tight coupling of data from various mea-
surements is implied in Figure 5-32b by the position vector output which contains
the four states of latitude, longitude, altitude, and GI's clock bias ( C R ) For
. accurate
navigation, the GI's clock bias as well as its first and second derivatives are included
in the navigation filter.

5.8.5 Integrated Missile Guidance Systems

This section discusses the design of integrated navigation, guidance, and control
(NGC) systems for tactical missiles using optimum control and estimation theory
based on Williams et al. [1983]. Sensors used in this design consist of strapdown
accelerometers and rate gyros and a strapdown homing seeker. Guidance and control
algorithms, in addition to performance studies, is presented in Book 3 of the series.
The overall system is shown in Figure 3-53a. The design uses a passive strapdown
seeker and a set of strapdown inertial sensors (gyros and accelerometers). These
sensors provide the two LOS angles between the missile and target as measured in
the missile pitch and yaw planes, and the missile body rates (P, Q, R) and accel-
erations (A,, A,, A,) along the three principal body axes of the missile. T h e LOS
angles, plus information about the missile body rates and accelerations as provided
by the inertial sensors, are inputs to the navigation and FCS. The integrated N G C
system is shown schematically in Figure 5-33b.
Since the guidance algorithm requires knowledge of the inertial LOS rate,
which cannot be directly obtained from the output of a strapdown seeker, an al-
gorithm by which these rates can be estimated given the angular inputs is essential
in order to achieve good performance. In the design of Figure 5-53b, these rates
are not obtained by a finite difference algorithm which could produce serious errors
in the presence of noisy o r infrequent data, but instead an extended Kalman filter
(EKF) includes these rates as state variables. The EKFs are part of the navigation
filters as shown in the figure. Since both channels have identical dynamics, the
navigation filters for each channel are also identical and have the structure shown
in Figure 5-53c. The block diagram is intended to show that the output of the filter
u, as well as the state estimates 8 and 4 are continuous-time variables, whereas the
inputs to the filter are discrete-time variables. (In actual implementation, the con-
tinuous-time variables are also discrete-time variables, but the sampling interval is
much smaller.) The navigation filter automatically extrapolates the state estimates
from one observation until the next in accordance with the missile dynamics. This
is very important when the seeker-sampling interval T, is relatively long compared
with the dynamic behavior of the missile. It also automatically solves the problem
Inertial Navigation Chap. 3
Sec. 5.8 Integrated Inertlal Naulgatlon System (IINS)

Parameter DesCrIDtlon

body angular rates

body I l n e a r accel.

P l t c h , R o l l . Iltadlng
vn. vc, Yz North. East. Dan Veloclty
L.A. h Latitude, Longitude, A l t l t v d e
l m d other coordlnatc
systea equivalents)

Baro A l t l t u d c
Calibrated Alrspeed

True Airspeed

A t r Dtnslty
A l r Temperature

('=)

El .

Figure 5-52 (a) Integrated NavigationlFlight Control Overview Block Diagram

(b) Flight ControllNavigation Interfaces (c) Summary (d) Typical Strapdown Block
Diagram for Low Cost/Performance IMU with Kalman Filter Updating (From
[Osder, 19861, O 1986 IEEE)
 Inertial Nauigatlon Chap. 5

Sight
Angler

--

.-
-PI C001101NATE
YziT-
.la
-
-
-
*rr.L- TIIANSFOR-
UTIO* A"TOPILOT
".A
----C
CO*I"OL
b SURFACE
DEFLECTIONS

.
8 0 V

DIIECTIOY
UKI*E
UIlllX
l*TEt"AT,O*

-
- UlC"
Q tf'
P
- I O U

- "A.
R

Figure 5-53 (a) Overall System (b) Integrated Guidance and Control System Sche-
matic (c) Navigation Filter Schematic (From /Mrilliatns rt al., 19831, 0 1983 A I A A )
Sec. 5.8 Integrated inertial Naulgation System (IINS)

MEASURED
INERTIAL
LINE-OF-SIGHT

of seeker blinding which occurs when the target conlpletely fills the field of view
of the seeker and the latter can no longer provide useful directional signals. When
this happens, the switches shown in Figure 5-53c remain open and the missile
continues by dead reckoning to the interception.

Another example of an integrated seeker-guidance navigation

system. In a classical design, a weapon guidance system includes two distinct
inertial sensor sections. Figure 3-34a showsthe separate flight control using a ref-
erence gyro for yaw and pitch corrections. Also shown in this figure is the additional
seeker equipment, which in this case is an optical device including a tracker, that
relies on a second reference gyro system for LOS stabilization. Figure 5-54b(i),
.
however. shows one stra~downreference svstem made UD of the reference unit and
the strapdown computer. This single unit is capable of referencing both the flight
control and the seeker system. Figure 5-54b(ii) shows how future weapon system
guidance and seeker-processing tasks will be integrated into one processor. Figure
5-54c illustrates a structure of the navigation software development system (NSD).
Figure 5-54d depicts a block diagram for the LOS control. The gimbal control
including the controlled element (gimbal and torquer) together with a high-band-
width angle transducer are both contained in the inner loop. The nonlinear char-
acteristics shown in the figure represent the effects of friction found with all gimbal
 Inertial Naulgation Chap. 5

(B)
Figure 5-54 (a) Functional Diagram ofa Classical <;uidance& Seeker System with
Separate Gyro Rcfcrenccs (b) Functional Diagram o l a Guidance & Seeker System
with a Strapdown llcferencc (i) Distributed Electronics (ii) Low-Cost Version with
an Advanced Processor (c) Structure of the Navigation Software Development Sys-
tem (NSD) (d) Block Diagram of Line-of-Sight Control (From [RahlJs rr a / . , 19871
with prmrissio!~jo!n A C A R D )
Sa. 5.8 Integrated Inertfal Naulgatlon System (IINS)

REFERENCE OATA: ACCELERATION. RATE. ATTITUDE. POSITION

II - 1
nlmAm MIUL SDGDR MIA RUS REAL TIME M R ~ D SIW
m 1 m MTA ElWl
m 1 m
AafWT. RN
PATE RDCESSIrn

CONVERSION
m 80285187
PISUL

(C)

1 LOS CLOS

- LOS.. . J ~ n eo f s~gnt
 Guidance Processing
Current methods used in guidance processing are examined in this chapter based
on AGNC[1986(i)]. Figure 6-1 illustrates the order in which these methods are
presented, including their subsections. The primary functions of the elements that
make up the guidance system include sensing, information processing, and correc-
tion. The guidance algorithm is used for correction. Several different guidance sys-
tem configurations are currently in use as solutions to numerous types of guidance
problems. The guidance problems are mainly determined by the nature and the
location of the target, the circumstances for weapon delivery, and the environmental
conditions.

6.1 GUIDANCE PROCESSORS

As discussed in Book 1 of the series, precision-guided munitions (PGM) depend

heavily on their guidance processors. Imbedded processors are currently present on
all guided vehicles in order that the entire system operates based on a particular
algorithm. A general guidance system is drawn in Figure 2-2. Theguidance algorithm
as part of the guidance loop represents an essential component in the design of an
integrated guidance system. The information subsystem, which is needed to perform
the guidance task of pursuer-target intercept, determines basically the configuration
of necessary sensors and information processing, including the guidance tracking filter.
 Sec a1 Quldance Processors

GuidanaRarssor
( k c . 6.1)
I I
Guidasc Mission & Pctfonnance Guidana Algorithms

G u i d m Rrfonaance G u i i e Phase Opcratiin PresetGuidancc Dinct Guidance

(Sec. 6.2.1) (Sec. 6.2.2) (Sec. 6.23) (Sec. 6.4.1) ( k c . 6.4.2)
I I
Multiple Mode Guidance Modeling
I II I
Command
I
~e-ding
I
~oiing
I
Talos

Active Semi- Passive

hG&omsc 'Itnninal E m r Analysis Model
(Sce. 63.1) (Scc. 6 3 2 )

Guidance Filter Guiance Law

(Chap. 3 ( k c . 6.5)
I

I I
LOS An& Guidance LOS Rate Guidance
( k c . 65.1) ( k c . 6.5.2)

Pursuit Deviated Pursuit1 Constant Proportional

-
Fixed-Lea Navigation
Guidance (PNG)
and Its Variations

I
Sensitivity and Comparison of Guidance Laws
(Sec. 6.5.3 & Chap. 8)
I
Guidance Mode Options
(Sec.6.6)

Single Mode Dual Mode Multimode

(Sec. 6.6.1) ( k c . 6.6.2) (Sec. 6.6.3)

I I
Air Defense Future Guidance Processing

Performance Systems Technological Missile

Parameters (Sec. 6.7.2) Advames Guidance
(Scc. 6.7.1) (Sec. 6.8.1) (Sec. 6.8.2)
F i g u r e 6-1 Guidance Processing
254 Guidance Processing Chap, 6

Types of targets include surface as well as subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic

aerial, and the target itself may be either friendly or enemy. A refueller aircraft is
one example of a friendly target, while enemy aircraft, tanks, ships, submarines
or missiles are examples of enemy targets. The pursuer, although generally an air-
craft or missile, is not limited to these two types. The control process makes use
of signals coming from the target (where the target may be a source or reflector).
Within the guidance loop shown in Figure 2-2, individual guidance processses are
characterized by a system of differential equations. Some of these describe the mathe-
matical model used to represent the pursuer, while others describe models of the
kinematics, the information subsystem, the control elements, and the ~peratorlpilo~.
With such models of the guidance system it is possible to analyze the latter's accuracy
and stability, and to synthesize the information subsystem and the laws governing
the functioning of the control elements. In the particular case of missile applications,
the guidance and control weapons and ballistic missiles embrace the methods and
technologies required to correct the missile's actual trajectory in flight so that it
maintains an intended trajectory to a target. A clear distinction must be drawn
between guidance to a fixed geographical location, suitable for a strategic missile,
and homing on to a moving target.
If the retina of the eye is the sensor, and the pupil, cornea, lens, eye muscles,
and movable head make up the seeker, the human brain is the processor. All control
of the system falls on the processor. Signals generated by the sensor are processed
for target information. If the signals do not contain what the processor is designed
to call a target, the seeker is commanded by the processor to continue its prearranged
surveillance pattern. It is the processor as well that decides when a received signal
represents a target signature. The seeker is then commanded to acquire the target,
lock on it, and track it. In the case of autonomous acquisition, or the detection and
recognition of targets with military value without human intervention, the processor
is again the key (See Figures 6-2a and 6-2b). The main function of the processor,
after lock-on occurs, is to relate the coordinates of the missile with the coordinates
of the target and to issue commands to missile components to eventually make the
coordinates match. It contains the guidance laws used to direct the missile on the
best course to intercept the target, and essentially commands the missile to hit the
target. The demands on the missile acreleratirig capability as an important system
parameter depend strongly on the kind of guidance law. In order to accomplish this
objective, the processor is actually an intermediary between a data source and the
missile control. The data source is the seeker which provides information 011 the
targct location. The missile control is the autopilot which tells thc missile how to
get to the targct [Heaston and Smoots, 19831.
In thc dcfcnse scenario, the missile is responsible for pcrforn~ingthe search,
acquisition, and lock-on operations, although other methods exist for accomplishing
these functions. For examplc, a ~articu~arly simple approach has thc launch station
performing the scarch and acquisition functions and sending target position infor-
mation to the missile seeker, directing it to lock on to the targct before the missile
is launched. Such a procedure is referred to as lock-on bcfore la~rrlrlt (LOBL). The
Ssc. 6.1 Guidance Processors 255

missile seeker is not always able, however, to lock 011 while still on the launcher
by reason of interference from the radar associated with the launcher. because the
target cannot be tracked through the high-acceleration launch phasc, because the
targct is not within the field of view (FOV) of the seeker, or simply by reason of
ocher circ~~rnstances relating to a particular system. In such an event, it is necessary
to go to a more complex operating sequence. For instance, target position infor-
mation tnay be provided to the missile to aid it in acquiring the targct after launch,
yet the rnissile must cycle through a search and acquisition phasc after being
launched. Such a procedure is referred to as lock-orr flfier laltttch (LOAL). Figure 6-
2a depicts a stand-off autonomous LOAL for air-to-surface environment.
A I'GM is a very complex package that has been subject to numerous trade-
off decisions in its design. The ability of a guided missile to reach its target after
launch in the absence of any form of support provided by the launch vehicle or
operator is known by various phrases includingfire and forget and launcl~ntrd leave.
These types of systems can be LOBL or LOAL, but much research is currently
being conducted in the area of autonomous acquisition, which is the most advanced
type of LOAL. Figure 6-21 just presented is one such example. The con~pleteelim-
ination of operator assistance, requiring automatic target detection. association, and
tracking is a challenging goal and makes this mode of operation very difficult.
Modern weapon guidance will require all-weather capability for aircraft attrition,
autonomous target acquisition and long-range midcourse guidance for stand-off,
passive and low RCS sensors for stealth, terrain following/avoidance
. for weapon
attrition, multirole weapons with increased accuracy for weapons loadout, and mul-
tisensors (dual mode) and image processing for countermeasures. At the same time,
technological advances in areas such as digital processing throughput and memory,
artificial intelligence technique, guidance sensor performance, and multiple/com-
plementary guidance sensors will be exploited to a greater extent to produce smart
weapons with increased accuracy. An autonomous weapon algorithm sequence is
shown in Figure 6-2b [Hardy, 1986, 19901. The missile seeker uses target indication
signals either to acquire and track the target without any search, or to perform a
small sector search. When the missile seeker must perform such a search, the time
required for it to switch from search to track is minimized by the target signals
provided by the aircraft's information subsystem. Control signals. on the other hand,
permit verification of the missile's operabilitv. The actions that the missile will take
depend on the target and control signals, and are communicated to the computer
through feedback signals [Maksimov and Gorgonov, 19881.
Figures 6-3a and 6-3b look at factors that go into determining target acqui-
sition time. Chief among these are the search volume, processing bandwidth, and
signal-to-noise ratio (SIN) optimization. Figure 6-33, which deals with target ac-
quisition with a missile seeker, shows how this requires searching through expected
displacement, velocity, and angular uncertainties. Figure 6-3b, which deals with
processing bandwidth and S/N optimization, shows how the time for missile-seeker
target acquisition can be as long as the terminal guidance time interval. Figures 6-
3c, 6-3d, and 6-3e look at multiple-target resolution with range gating, Doppler
 - - a

WEAPON
LAUNCH
MIDCOURSE
NAVIGATION
TARGET
SEARCH1
DETECTION
TARGET
4 CLASSIFICATION/
PRlORlTUATION
+
TARGET
-
lDENnFfCATloN1
AIMPOINT
A . SELECTION

A PRIOR1 TERMINAL
AIMPOINT
TARGETING
KNOWLEDGE * MAINTENANCE
(TRACKING)

(B)

Figure 6-2 (a) Stand-off Autonomous Lock-on-after-Launch (LOAL) (b) Autonomous

Weapon Algorithm Sequence (Courtesy of F. W.Hardy, 1986)
 Field of view that needs
to be searched
Missile position ,/
at start of search /'

Translational
error due to
inertial reference due to attitude Unpredicted
drift reference drift Q
,tet motion
since last update
(A)

T S = Time Interval for search Required homing range

through range velocity,
angle uncertainties

I- R
Range to start search
+
RSS = RH VC TS (VC = closing velocity magnitude)
Receiver processing bandwidth, ~f will be
1 Number of looks
proportional to
Dwell time
- Ts
2

Type system IR Semi-active Active

radar radar
Sa 1 1 1
Signal power Sa Sa
(RH + VC %I2 (RH + VC TsI2 + VC T s ) ~
(RH

Noise power 'N a 1

JAT~ - NaAfa 1
- NaAfa - 1
JG Ts Ts

Maximize SIN by finding Ts for

a-
SIN
=0
aTs

TS for Ts = -. RH RH
Ts = RH Ts =
max SIN 3% Vc 3Vc
(8)
Figure 6-3 (a) Target Acquisition with Missile Seeker (Target acquisition with missile seeker
requires searching through expected displacerncnt, velocity, and angular uncertainties) (b) Time
for Missile-Seeker Target Acquisition Can Be as Long as the Terminal Guidance Time Interval
(c) Multiple Target Resolution with Range Gating Requires Trajectory Shaping (d) Multiple
Target Resolution with Doppler Gating Requires Narrow Bandwidth Doppler Tracking (e)
Multiple Target Resolution with Angle Gating Requires Small Beam Widths or Fields of View
(Courtesy o J K . Hiroshigr, 1984) (Figure r o ~ ~ r i ~on
~ uopposite
rs pogc.)
Target resolution

(D)
Figure 6-3 (Continued)
 260 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

Radar antenna beamwldth

@B.w.
-
- Wave length (fad)
Aperture dia

Target resolution At x-band ( . l ft wave length) 8

at 10,000 ft (ft) 1 ft aperture, $,,, = 6 O

Electreoptical system field of view

ofov = Detector size

Focal length
Vr

cr&ing angle (deg) "8"

(E)
Figure 6-3 (Continued)

gating, and angle gating. Figure 6-3c shows plots of target resolution versus crossing
angle for different values of range resolution. Multiple-target resolution with range
gating requires trajectory shaping. Figure 6-3d also shows plots of target resolution
versus crossing angle but for different values o f Doppler-difference velocity or Dop-
pler-difference frequency. Multiple-target resolution with Doppler gating requires
narrow-bandwidth Doppler tracking. Finally, Figure 6-3e shows plots of target
resolution at 10,000ft versus crossing angle for different values of angular resolution.
Multiple-target resolution with angle gating requires small beamwidths or FOV
[Hiroshige, 19861.

Precision guidance requirements and achievements. The factors

that will necessitate the weapon guidance requirements previously listed include
aircraft and weapon attrition, stealthier planes, electronic countcrmcasures (ECM),
autonomous guidance and control system, weapons loadout, and stand-off. Addi-
tional challenges will be posed to effectively deal with and overcome high-clutter
environments, nonstatic thermal emission signatures, and severe target shape varia-
tion. Regarding modern weapon guidance requirements, some o f the conclusions
based on recent trends in weapon guidance that can be drawn include the following
Sec 6.1 Guidance Processors 261

Breakthroughs in IR focal plane arrays (FPA), providing substantial increases in

sensitivity, resolution, and FOV, hold the greatest promise for autonomous ac-
quisition of ships and high-value target (HVT). Solid-state MMW devices having
affordable all-weather capabilitv will make for sol~leof the lowest-cost autonomous
antitank weapons. These will also provide low-cost synthetic aperture radar (SAR)
potential for H V T [Hardy, 19861. Meeting and conqucring nearly all of the chal-
lenges posed earlier will depend heavily on a continually forward-looking research
and dcvclopment (R&D)effort on the part ofthe aerospace and clcctronics industries.
The incrcasc of digital processing capability for netting onboard PGM com-
ponents and for con~putationalpurposes will permit thc implementation of complex
guidance algorithms in further smart weapons. Microproccssors will continue to
be at the foundation of future system performance improvcments, as increasing
efforts are made to advance beyond current state-of-the-art capabilities. The need
for such capability has been recognized for many years, as evidenced by Jotrrnal of
Astrot~acrtics G Aeronautics declaring in 1982 on their front cover, "Smart Missiles,
Reshaping the Navy?" [AIAA, 19821. One particularly important area of advance-
ment will be that of producing intelligent microprocessors. Major improvcments
in processors and microprocessors in the 1970s and the introduction of large-scale
integratcd (LSI) circuits point to another order-of-magnitude leap forward in this
area for the 1980s. The continuing advancement of microelectronic technology from
integrated circuits (IC) to medium-scale integrated (MSI) circuits to LSI and beyond
circuits has led to a steady improvement in signal processing capability and relia-
bility. This has resulted in improved precision and consequent reduction in circular
error probability (CEP) of PGM. Technology is moving ahead so quickly that
fourth-generation, very large-scale integrated (VLSI) circuits and very high-speed
integrated circuits (VHSIC), and fifth-generation ultra-high-speed integrated circuit
(UHSIC) coxnponents are already being tested in the laboratory. The introduction
of VLSI circuits, VHSIC, and UHSIC approaching submicron in size will mean
more processing capability, lower cost, lighter weight, and increased versatility, all
of which will bring about greater signal processing capability in smaller PGM pack-
ages. N e w M M W sources, imaging devices, lower power requirements, and new
complex signal processing techniqies will also a d d significant features to PGM.
Very rapid advancements mean that developmental systems are only partially fielded
before major improvements are inserted. The second generation of STINGER is
already being adapted into the STINGER-POST, with production of the latter
phased into making u p part of the total STINGER requirement [Hcaston and
Smoots, 19831.
Increased sensor perfortnance also contributes to the advancement in guidance
and control technology. For example, in imaging sensing, it is predicted that 3-5
micron-scanning FPA (fourth generation) and 8-12 micron-staring FPA (fifth gen-
eration) will be ready for systems applications soon. Some unique capabilities such
as gyro-on-a-chip (sixth-generation technology) are on the horizon. High-frequency
electromagnetic sources and detectors in small practical packages have been devel-
oped that provide improvements in range and angle resolution, allowing warheads
 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

to now be guided to the target with a higher probability of kill. Increases of two
to five orders of magnitude in the sensitivity or output of detectors and active sources
have been demonstrated in the laboratory. Charge coupled devices (CCD), F ~ A
(scanning and staring), integrated optics, fiber optics, and spectral filters are already
a part of some breadboard and flight test-hardware. As shown later in this chapter
and in Chapters 7 and 8, the use of complementary/Kalman filters and multiple/
complementary guidance sensors such as multiple sensor fusion, and the develop-
ment of multimode radomes and IR domes offer unique performance capabilities,
The accuracy required for missiles to cut a runway, for example, in a number
of places to prevent its subsequent use without time-consuming repairs cannot be
achieved over ranges of 200 kilometers or more by inertial systems alone. As pre-
sented in Chapter 5 , improved covert navigation systems are needed. One possibilit\.
would be to make position fixes from a satellite-based GPS. However, if an a"-
tonomous missile navigation system is required, alternatives must be sought. In the
United Kingdom, terrain-matching techniques have been under examination. AS
with aircraft, the terrain-based navigation system is only possible because small fast
microprocessors and techniques for compact data storage are now available. The
aim of future work will be to achieve delivery accuracies of the order of one to five
meters circular error probable so that targets such as bridges may be attacked. This
will require algorithms of autonomous detection and recognition of targets. Such
algorithms are presented in Section 6.8.2 and Book 4 ofthe series. A similar problem,
which may arise first, is the remote attack of armor by missiles delivering terminally-
guided submunitions (TGSM) (see Example 6-10) [Barnes, 19871.

Example 6-1: STANDARD missile guidance system development.

This example is based on discussions in Witte and McDonald [I9811 as follows.
Figure 6-4a depicts the STANDARD Missile-1 (SM-1) along with the STAN-
DARD Missile-2 (SM-2) extensions. The use of modular packaging removed a great
deal of potential difficulty in upgrading the STANDARD Missile to SM-2. A new
guidance section together with additions to the autopilotlbattery section were the
primary upgrades, the remaining sections involving almost n o modifications. The
concept of semiactive guidance is illustrated in Figure 6-4b. Continuous wave,
semiactive guidance, whereby highly pure, sinusoidal RF energy illuminates the
target and makes objects distinguishable from one another on the basis of their
velocity by the Doppler shift of the reflected energy, is used by both SM-I and
SM-2. In this figure, since the high-power shipborne radar transmitter and the
missile receiver are linked but not colocated, homing is considered semiactivc. To
deal with potential jamming by the target, a passive homing capability is also pro-
vided. The onboard homing receiver together with the steerable front antenna make
up the seeker. The seeker not only provides target tracking, but also supplies the
guidance computer with information for computing missile steering commands.
Figure 6-4c shows STANDARD Missile operational sequence. SM-I, which
is supplied target acquisition data while it is on the launcher, then initiates homing
soon after the unguided boost phase of flight. By contrast, the SM-2 expericnccs a
 ~adbme I ~uidance \ ~utdpilotlbattery Rocket motor
I
Steering control
Seeker antenna Ordnance
(A)

Missile Guidanm System

Steering commands
to autopilot

signal
illumination signal

Target detection by fuze

8 Warhead detonation

-$
/$&

/
Homing Phase
Missile homes to target
8 Semiactive or home-owjam
guidance

/ Figure 6-4 STANDARD Missile

Guidance System Development (a)

/
Midcourse Phase (SM-2 only)
8 Missile flies to vicinity of target STANDARD Missile-1 (b) Semiactive
Guidance intelligence supplied by ship
Guidance Concept (c) STANDARD Mis-
sile Operational Sequence (d) Typical Sig-

P
A'
:~wlsI;;h;;;;
Boost Phase
superson~cspeed nals Received by the Missile in Flight (e)
SM-? Midcourse Plus Semiactive Ter-

APL ~ r i h n i c a lDigest)

263
 rrnrr -
w*
01 -
"rival Guidom
- Mini10
wlntion
Toil
d*tlrtiora
" ' - -

-
%N lelr1ronic eoum*. mmwtw m m ~ d r -
'Y! Im0v.bl. ."I*""..
.-r
muntwmm Ip(op0nioruI
A,,topilOt oirtnm/
or i.mmiW iMnially stabilizedl nrodynmis,
trturrl nwipltionl
Miui*. +

"'F
nlatlve
docity Miuil*
rnDtk.7

83
"
zE
a

Radar frequency Video frequency

/"-'I Scannina

oscillator

Reference signal antenna

8 83
-.-ws w
H
Q
t 2
Radar frequency Video frequency

Reference signal antenna

receiver

(H)

Figure 6-4 (Continued)

266 Guidance Processing Cbp.

midcourse phase under the ship's control. At a specified point occurring much fur-
ther in flight, target acquisition takes place and homing is initiated. In the endgam,
phase, a missile-borne proximity fuse detects the target, at which point the warhead
is detonated. Figure 6-4d shows typical signals received by the missile in flight,
Using either target-reflected energy or jamming energy from the target, it is p ~ s s i b ] ~
in most circumstances to obtain good steering information. It is essential, however,
that interfering signals be rejected. These signals, which can surpass the target skin
return by several orders of magnitude, can owe their existence to either enemy or
friendly sources, or to natural environments. Figure 6-4e shows SM-2 midcoursc
plus semiactive terminal guidance. In the AEGIS application shown in portion (i)
of this figure, the ship guides SM-2 through the midcourse phase of flight. The
missile inertial reference unit converts uplink acceleration commands, which are
acknowledged via the downlink, into steering signals. Terminal homing which can
be delayed longer than in TERRIER or TARTAR because of greater midcourse
accuracy is commanded by uplink. In the TERRIER and TARTAR combat systems
indicated by portion (ii) of the figure, SM-2 guides itself to a point in space using
its IRU. When the trajectory of the missile must be altered, new points are sent to
the missile by the ship via the uplink. Downlink information allows missile flight
progress to be monitored. There is a predetermined time prior to intercept at which
the missile switches to terminal homing. This time can be adjusted during the mis-
sile's flight by sending an uplink command.
Figure 6-4f shows a functional block diagram that represents terminal guid-
ance. STANDARD Missile terminal guidance centers around processing an RF
signal rcceived from the target. Target angle and velocity information, as determined
by the receiver, is translated by the guidance computer into steering commands.
Adjustments in the aerodynamic control surfaces to alter the n~issilc'strajectory are
initiated by the autopilot. Also, a solid rocket propulsion system supplies kinematic
energy. Figure 6-4g illustrates the scanning receiver operation. An intentional am-
plitude modulation on the received signal is accomplished by a nutation of the
scanning secker antcnna. The result of such modulation is the creation of sidebands
about each return, whether from the target o r from clutter. From the magnitude
of the first-scan sideband associated with the target signal, seeker angle error in-
formation is derived. However, scan sidebands associated with clutter can interfere
with target detection and tracking. Figure 6-4h illustrates how a monopulse receiver
functions. The relative magnitudes of the R and a signals, formed by summing and
differencing the signals received by the four symn~etricallyoffset lobes of the inon-
opulsc antcnna, contain angle error information. Because this simultaneous n m -
surement approach bypasscs the need for anlplitudc modulation in time-sequc~ltial
measurement (scanning) receivers, there is a substantial reduction in ~ o ~ ~ l c r - b a n d
interference,
Ensuring that pace would be kept, in the context of missile capability, with
the long-range, high data-rate, target-detection characteristics of the ANISI'Y-1A
radar required an evolutionary upgrade of the existing SM-1. O n e such upgrade
consisted of adding a command midcourse flight phase, which would arm the A E G I ~
combat systcm with increased intercept range and greater firepower. This newer
Sec. 6.1 Guldance Processors 267

version missile with inertial midcoursc guidance. ternled SM-2, also provided up-
graded TEIIRIEII and TARTAR combat systems with a concurrent increase in
capability. The inclusion of a new homing receiver common to all SM-2 variants
was responsible for improving terminal guidance accuracy. During the early 1970s,
a t which time SM-1 was in production as the primary weapon for fleet air defense
by TElZRlEIl and TARTAR ships, the dcvcloprnctit of SM-2 began. It was orig-
inally thought that the pritnary modification to SM-1 ~ o u l dconsist of adding a
midcoursc guidance system involving cornmunicatioi~links, a digital guidance com-
putcr, and an IRU. Figure 6-43 shows how these additions were included physically.
Concerning terminal guidancc, the initial plan called for cniploying the existing SM-
1 scanning receiver. This plan was scrapped in 1972, however, to include a new
monopulse terminal homing receiver. In the end, the guidance section for the final
SM-2 configuration was almost entirely new. Other features of the final SM-2 con-
figuration included a repackaged autopilot to accommodate the IRU, and the existing
SM-I ordnance, propulsion, and steering. control systems. In the two years of de-
- -

veloping the new homing receiver, during which time significant advances were
mad^. in the areas of signal processing and logic, the communication links had pro-
gressed substantially, and it was not long before hardware interface tests were being
conducted to demonstrate ship system compatibility. During flight tests conducted
a t White Sands Missile Range in 1975, the SM-2 began to be viewed as a highly
accurate missile.

Example 6-2: The Talos guidance system. As a result of continued

development efforts that began with the Bumblebee and Talos programs came the
Talos guidance system, which was based on technology that included the first beam-
riding system and the first semiactive interferometer homing system. The emerging
guidance system, whose development was an evolutionary process, was virtually
unjammable, providing the missile with capabilities against piloted aircraft, antiship
missiles, surface ships and boats, and radar targets. At the time consideration was
first given to the Bumblebee program, missile guidance technology had just come
into existence, and early guidance development work was based on pulse radar
technology, as pulse radars were fully usable by the middle 1940s. The first guidance
concept centered around using a radar beam that followed the target to guide the
missile to it. It was not long, however, before it was determined that 10 nautical
miles were about the maximum distance within which the maximum allowable miss
distance could be achieved using such a beam-riding system. In order to increase
the target intercept range for the missile, the guidance concept was altered to use
beam-riding for the midcourse phase and semiactive homing for the terminal phase.
The resulting guidance system could obtain very small miss distances, regardless
almost of intercept range. The objective of greatest focus concerning guidance in
the latter years of developing the Talos system was the homing system. As a result,
a monopulse homing system was developed that was virtually unjammable together
with an antiradiation missile seeker that provided the missile with the capability to
home on radar targets [Gulick et al., 19821.
 268 GufdanceProcessing Chap.

Given that USS Oklahoma City, with the last Talos missile system onboard
was decommissioned in 1980, a few comments are in order concerning this systeG
and its components. As Dean [I9821 noted, "Though AEGIS reflects the techno,
logical advancements and refinements of the past decade, it was the broadly based
research and development efforts of the Talos program that supplied the underlying
technology that gave birth to the present generation of surface-to-air missiles."~
Whereas missile guidance systems for many generations to come will probably take
concepts employed in the Talos program and build thereon, the Talos program had
no similar, existing missile guidance program on which to build. Rather, it was
forced to rely on a pioneering spirit and to do things that had not been done before
[Goss, 19821. Some of these "firsts" that the Talos program can boast of include
the first rocket-launched supersonic ramjet engine, the first interferometric homing
guidance, and the first beam-riding missile system. Moreover, the Talos system
was the first to incorporate a tactical nuclear warhead. In the Vietnam conflict, Tabs
distinguished itself in early engagements by its deadly accuracy at long range. Ac-
cording to Goss [1982], Talos will not be distinguished merely by its achievements,
which alone cannot be understated, but by the developments that would emerge
from the program. These range from the current and future generations of antiair-
craft missile systems (hardware and concepts), to a technology that is pervading
such fields as satellite systems and biomedical engineering.

6.2 GUIDANCE MISSlON AND PERFORMANCE

Fundamentally, the role of the guidance processor is to ensure that a particular

mission is accomplished \vith thc best possible performance. As shown in Figure
6-1, the critical guidance issues relating to this are guidance performance (Section
6.2.1). guidance phases (Section 6.2.2), and operation (Section 6.2.3). Before a de-
cision can be made as to how to combat a threat, mission analyses must be per-
formed. In such analyses, mission areas are designated based on functions of the
troops countering the threat; however, a standard set of mission areas has yet to be
adopted across all branches of the armed forces. Guidance missions can be divided
into air-to-air (AA) missions, air-to-surface (AS) missions, surface-to-surface (SS)
missions, and surface-to-air (SA) missions. In their underwater deployment of
I'GM, the Navy enlploys a modified version of these definitions. All these missions
are outlined in Figure 6-5, in each of which the missile is located in the middle
between the launcher to the left and the target to the right. The lines drawn in these
figures denote possible data links or sensor transmission paths employed by the
PGM [Heaston and Smoots, 19831. The air launch mission for tactical missiles is
considered to bc described by two different (not mutually exclusive) scenarios: AA
versus AS combat and stand-off versus short-range combat. According to the phase

'This quote is taken from an article by Frank A. Dean entitled "Guest Editor's lntroduction~''
Johns Hopkinr APL Tetlltliral Di,qerr. Vol. 3. N o . 2. April-June 1982, p. 115.
Sec. 6.2 Guidance Misslon and Performance 269

of flight, the guidance missions can also be divided into lntrt~ch/prelaurichphase mis-
sions, ttiiric.o~rust~phasc missions, Near !errriitra/ and rerrtri~ralphase missions. Figure 6-
6 graphically depicts the midcourse and terminal guidance phases of a tactical missile.
At the initialization of missile launch, kinematic parameters for each of these three
phases and the criteria for the missile's decision to transition from one phase to
another arc specified. Corresponding to the AS scenario, a midcourse guidancc phase
is entered following launch in which the n~issilcis directed to the target area. This
is followed by a search and acquisition phasc during which the missile seeker scans
a region looking for a target. Upon detecting a target, the seeker locks on to it, that
is, tracks its position, and acquisition is accomplished. This results in the initiation
of terminal guidance, where the seeker is used to provide information concerning
the relative positions of the missile and target. Such information is then used to
guide the missile to impact. Here, terminal guidance could have been used inter-
changeably with homing guidance.

6.2.1 Guidance Performance

F i g ~ ~ r6-1
e illustrates the different guidancc mode options in these three phases.
Figure 6-7 presents multiple guidance mode considerations for an AA environment,
while Figure 6-8 presents that of surface-to-air missile (SAM) operation. The guid-
ance problem for range-enhanced missiles is to obtain an optimal trajectory and
guidance law for midcourse and terminal phases. These missiles generally include
a command-update inertial midcourse guidance and active or a semiactive radar
seeker terminal guidance. The function of the midcourse guidance is to minimize
energy loss and bring the heading error to zero at handover. Handover from mid-
course to terminal guidance occurs following target acquisition by the missile seeker.
In general, midcourse guidance response is neither fast nor accurate enough, even
at short range, to consistently achieve the desired miss distance that is within the
lethal radius of the missile warhead. Therefore, a terminal guidance mode is nec-
essary following midcourse guidance during which the missile homes on the target
until intercept occurs and the missile warhead is detonated.
The use of midcourse guidance followed by a relatively short period ofterminal
homing offers a significant improvement in firepower and missile intercept coverage
at the expense of the inclusion of the sensors and data links necessary for imple-
mentation. Several factors bear on the success or failure of the missile during the
terminal guidance phase. Chief among these is seeker acquisition at the desired time
of handover. Near intercept, the missile's kinematic capability, or speed and ma-
neuverability, relative to that of the target becomes critical. Obviously, it is much
more difficult to deal with targets that do a good deal of crossing and maneuvering
than with directly incoming nonmaneuvering threats. Guidance accuracy is also,
affected to a large degree by factors such as an angle scintillation phenomenon known
as target glint and, in certain circumstances, severe fades in the target-reflected signal
at a critical time prior to intercept. Missile heading error, which is a measure of the
 MISSILE

t
/
//
'\ \\\
\
\\

k'
LAUNCHER
------------
h
TARGET

MISSILE

I
I
LAUNCHER

I LAUNCHER MISSILE

ATARGET
 LAUNCHER TARGET

- -------------

'\ / \\

\
/
/

MISSILE
(D)

TARGET

LAUNCHER WEAPON
, (E)

Figure 6-5 (a) Surface-to-Surface (Launch platforms may be tripods, ground ve-
hicles, cannon tubes, or ships. Targets may be a t ranges of one to greater than 1000
kilometers and consist of tanks, ships, men, material, and fortifications. Primary
interest is by the Army, Navy, and Marines.) (b) Surface-to-Air (Launch platforms
may be shoulder-mounted. tripods, ground vehicles or ships. Targets are airborne
helicopters, fighters, missiles, bombers, and supporting aircraft at ranges of one to
greater than 500 kilometers. Primary interest is by the Army, Navy, and Marines.)
(c) Air-to-Surface (Launch platforms are helicopters, close-air support fixed wing,
fighter aircraft and bombers. Targets may be any enemy high-value assets including
men, tanks, vehicles, material, air fields, SAM sites, bridges and ships. All three
Services and the Marines have an interest.) (d) Air-to-Air (Launch platforms are
primarily fighter aircraft and bombers. Self-defense systems for helicopters are under
consideration. Generally, targets are of like kind at ranges from three to 150 kilo-
meters. Navy. Marines and Air Force have major interest.) (e) Undersurface (Launch
platforms are submarines, ships and sometimes aircraft. Targets are enemy sub-
marines, ships, and aircraft a t one to 100 kilometers. Weapons may be mines, tor-
pedoes or missiles. The Navy and Air Force have interests in this area.) (From [Heas-
ton and Smoofs, 19831 with permissionfrom GACIAC) 271
 Midcource
Guidance Search And
Launch is==

--
Terminal Guidance
e - k ?-- - - - - - P

AIR TO SURFACE F L I G H T PHASES: L a u n c h

-\ \

Midcourse ( Control To Known Area 1, S e a r c h 5

And Acquisition , And Terminal Guidance

Launch
,&hering
-zmmond
---s -
-/.-- ---A z5c-
, SURFACE TO SURFACE FLIGHT PHASES :
WHY-- /-
Guidance Launch, Gathering (Capturing Or Gaining

--- Control Of The Missile Following Launch ),

And Command Guidance.

Figure 6-6 Typical Tactical Missile Trajcctorics (From [Heaston and Smoors, 198.?/ witlt per.
mission from GACIAC)
2 74 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

1 Sea clutter

- ,- .
nalluuvel ,
Engagement Acquisition Hit

Radar errors
Ship flexure
Launch errors
Other ELXlmech interconnect error
Figure 6-8 Area Defense Analysis Must Include ECM Environment & Target Models ICour-
resg o f K . Hiroshigr, 1984)

degree to which the missile is not steering toward the actual intercept point at
handover, can also have an influence on the final miss distance [Witte and McDonald,
19811. This influence depends on the missile-to-target range, missile speed, time of
handover, autopilot and control loop dynamic responsetime lags, and guidance
filter time constants. It is particularly important in the case o f slower missile response
and severe radome coupling as the speed and intercept altitude increase.
Performance evaluation requires modeling the interdependent acquisition and
miss-distance parameters. A flow diagram of various acquisition and miss-distance
parameters is shown in Figure 6-9a. Figure 6-9b depicts different noise sources and
their RMS noise levels (see Equations (2-20) and (2-23)) as functions of range-to-
go R. Figure 6-9c illustrates primary sources of miss distance for an air target
engagement. Figure 6-9d lists the effects of different sources on miss distance as
functions of closing velocity, missile velocity, and total time constant (T = 72).
Figure 6-9e illustrates the effects of the total system constant on RMS miss. A
missile constant is typically selected to minimize conflicting accuracy characteristics*
as depicted in Figure 6-9f (for a given A and Vc)as presented in later sections 2nd
in Chapter 8.
 Sec. 6.2 Ouldance Mlsslon and Performance

Search terminal
parameters radar
Parameters
Target
khematlcs Terminal
detection
models
Terminal
acquisition

Midcourse Seeker
detection i3
error
statistics

heading
Midcourse
miss distance
models

noise.

0 Range R

Figure 6-9 (a) Performance Evaluation Requires Modeling the Interdependent Acquisition
& Miss Distance Parameters (b) Noise Sources and Their Noise Levels as Functions of Range
to Go (c) Major Miss Distance Contributors (d) The Miss Distance Dependence on Closing
Velocity & Time Constant (T = 7,) Varies for Different Contributors & Type of Seeker (e)
Effect of System Time Constant on Miss (0 Missile Constant Selected to Minimize Conflicting
Accuracy Characteristics ((a), ld), (e) courtesy oJK. Hiroshige, 1984)
276 Guldance Processing Chap. 6

W g e t Maneuver

Glint Noise

.,.'.'.'.' Heading E m r at
Handover to Homing

@ Missile Response
Receiver Noise
Radome Enor
Range R
(C)

Source
I
I
Closing velocity (Vc),
Missile velocity (VM)
I
Total time
constant (7)

Glint noise vc? I ,-I12

Fading noise
Semi-activelpassive
I Vc' I r112

receiver noise
Active receiver noise
Heading error I Vm' 1 T

.
Maneuvering target
Dual target I Time base only ( T 7B )

Figure 6-9 (Continued)

Example 6-3: Advanced missile guidance system against very

high-speed target. In this example, the guidance law consists of a midcourse
guidance phase and a homing guidance phase, as indicated in Figure 6-10. A mid-
course guidance law is used to navigate the missile in the midcourse phase, mini-
mizing the deviation angle at. lock-on from 180-deg head on. The terminal guidance
law takes over as soon as the missile seeker acquires the target. While current tactical
antiair missiles are designed chiefly for use against aircraft, there i s a growing concern
surrounding the threat of air-to-surface missiles (ASM). Advanced missile guidallcc
systems used in antiair er~gagcmcntswill have the capability o f intercepting a very
 Cumulative
miss
distance
(feet)

All misses normalized to

1 foot at r = 1 sec
(Results from
approximation formulas)

."" .
.01
--

.1 1 10
Time (sec)
(E)

Miss (ft)

Guidance System Time Constant rg( s ~ c )

(F)
Figure 6-9 (Continued)
 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

a -.
rrissiie
b
0
M

ospea
Figure 6-10 Geometric Relation be-
tween a Missile and a Target (at Lock-on)
0-l

AlAA)
r X -
(From [Kuroda and Imado, 19881, 1988
Y

high-speed target with a relatively low-speed missile, given some constraints on the
missile g performance and the aspect angle at lock-on. The closer the interception
geometry is to head on, the shorter the miss distance is. Simulation results show
that as the target speeds increase, the deviation angles from 180-deg head-on at lock-
on must correspondingly decrease in order to achieve satisfactorily small miss dis-
tances. For an extremely fast nonmaneuvering target as compared with the inter-
ceptor, a small miss distance can only be achieved if the aspect angle at lock-on 1s
near 180 deg. This tendency becomes more acute as altitude is increased. The sit-
uation is almost the same against a maneuvering target, exept that the miss distance
becomes small when a target maneuvers towards a missile and becomes large when
it maneuvers away from a missile particularly at a high altitude (15 km). The results
concerning the effectiveness of the advanced missile guidance system against a very
high-speed maneuvering target and the aspect angle constraint at lock-on are as
follows. Below a certain altitude (approximately 13-14 km), the advanced guidance
system of a SAM is effective against a very high-speed maneuvering target. Little
is gained in the way of being able to relax the aspect angle constraint at lock-on
with the advanced guidance law with compensation of the target lateral acceleration
(APN, see Chapter 8). The same is true of the advanced guidance law with comn-
pensation of the missile velocity change (velocity compensated PNG, see Section
6.5). Neither the target lateral acceleration nor the missile velocity change is pri-
marily responsible for the aspect angle constraint. The time-to-go estimation error
at lock-on in the PNG without the initial seeker gimbal pointing error has a sig-
nificant effect on the aspect angle constraint. It appears that a missile heading error
induced by the estimation error is the primary cause of the constraint. Because of
the time lag of the missile dynamics, the missile is unable to deal with the abrupt
change in the intercept geometry when the heading error (or the time-to-go esti-
mation error) exists. A very effective way, thcreforc, to relax this constraint is to
reduce the missile noise filter time constant. However, this is difficult to do by
reason of filter capability degradation, autopilot instability, and other effects. If it
is possible to reduce the missile noise filter time constant, the miss distances brought
about by the preceding time-to-go estimation error decrease and the result is that
the aspect angle constraint is relaxed. Concerning the advanced guidance system,
as a practical matter, the magnitudes of the command signals are confined to lie
between some maximum values owing to hardware limitations. If the closing speeds
are large, saturation of the command signals is likely to occur, resulting in large
Sec. 6.2 Guldance Mlsslon and Performance 279

miss distances. However, if it happens that the missile.and targct arc very close to
a head-on geometry, the LOS rotational ratcs are usually very small, so that the
command signals tend not to become saturated [Kuroda and Imado, 1988, 19891.

6.2.2 Phases of Flight

Following the launch phase, a midcoursc phase serves to direct the missile to a
region near the targct. In this region, accurate target information is provided by the
homing scckcr. This is followed by a terminal homing phase, which is the final
phase of pursuer flight prior to intcrccpting thc maneuvering target.

Launch phase. The missile launch phase can be described as follows. The
missile begins its flight with the speed and altitude of its base or platform, which
may be a moving vehicle such as a ship or aircraft. In progressing from these to its
desired speed and altitude, the missile must use the specific values of accelera-
tion/decelcration, and climbldivelturn rates given in its initialization message for
the launch phase. The transition from launch to midcoursc takes place when the
missile has reached a slant range from its point of launch that is equal to or greater
than the value of the field midtransition range given in its missile initialization
message. If the missile reaches the specified transition to terminal phase while still
in its launch phase, the missile transitions directly to terminal phase, skipping mid-
course phase entirely [Wildberger and Hunt, 19861. If the missile reaches its launch-
phase goal speed andlor altitude before its required transition to nlidcourse phase,
the missile remains at those goals for the rest of its launch phase. If the missile is
required to transition to midcourse before reaching its launch-phase goals, it switches
immediately to begin seeking midcourse goals and using midcourse kinematic pa-
rameters. During launch phase, the azimuth (horizontal) heading of the missile is
determined by an initial heading ordered by a weapon control system (WCS) task
or else by the missile's own solution to the target intercept problem, depending on
its operational state.

Midcourse phase. A missile is in midcourse phase from the moment it

reaches the slant range from its point of launch that is specified in the field mid-
traniition range of its initialization message. The missile remains in midcourse phase
until it transitions to terminal phase. The transition from midcourse to terminal
takes place when the missile has reached a slant range from its target that is equal
to or less than the value of the field term transition range given in its missile ini-
tialization message. Regardless of whether the missile has achieved the desired speed
and altitude set for launch phase, when it transitions to the midcourse phase, the
missile must take as its new starting conditions whatever speed and altitude it has
at the time of transition to midcourse. If the missile reaches midcourse-phase goal
speed and/or altitude before its required transition to terminal phase, the missile
remains at those goals for the rest of midcourse phase. If the missile is required to
transition to terminal phase before reaching its midcourse-phase goals, it switches
immediately to begin seeking terminal goals and using terminal kinematic param-
280 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

eters. During midcourse phase, the azimuth (horizontal) heading of the missile is
determined by the heading it was on when it transitioned to midcourse phase, and
by any heading ordered directly by a WCS task or by its own solution to the target
intercept problem, depending on its operational state as further explained in the
following section [Wildberger and Hunt, 19861.

Terminal phase. A missile is in terminal phase from the moment it reaches

the slant range from its target, which is specified in the field term transition range
of its initialization message. This is true even if the missile is still in launch phase
when it reaches terminal transition range from its target. The missile remains in
terminal phase until it detonates or destructs. Regardless of whether the missile has
achieved the desired speed and altitude set for midcourse phase, when it transitions
to the terminal phase, the missile must take as its new starting conditions whatever
speed and altitude it has at the time of transition to terminal phase. In progressing
from these to its desired speed and altitude for this phase, the missile must use the
specific values of acceleration/deceleration. and climbldivelturn rates given in its
initialization message for the terminal phase. During terminal phase, the azimuth
(horizontal) heading of the missile is determined by the heading it was on when it
transitioned to terminal phase, and by its solution of the target intercept problem
[Wildberger and Hunt, 19861.

Example 6-4: Typical laser-guided weapon mission. A typical mis-

sion has three distinct phases: launch, midcourse, and terminal. In the first of these,
the weapon is launched in the direction of the target. After launch, the laser sensor
in the weapon begins searching for the reflection from the target, corresponding to
the midcourse phase of flight. The midcourse phase may involve a ballistic flight
path, or an autopilot may steer a prcprogramnled path to the target's proximity,
dcpending on the tactics selected by the weapon designer. Upon detecting the target's
reflection, the autopilot transitions into the terminal guidance phase and begins
steering an intercept course to the target. The laser may be turned on before launch
or it may be delayed. The guidance system requires very little time to correct out
the launch and midcourse flight path heading errors [Christal and Mackey, 19841.

6.2.3 Operation

Guided weapons. Guided miss~lesare classified into four broad categories,

dcpending 011 launch and target position characteristics: (1) air-to-air r~lissiles
(AAM), launched from an aircraft at an airbornc target; (2) air-to-surface missiles
(ASM), launchcd from an aircraft a t a target on the carth's surface; (3) surfacc-to-
air missiles (SAM), launched from the carth's surface a t any airbornc target; (4)
surface-to-surface missilcs (SSM), launched from the earth's surfacc at a target on
the earth's surfacc. Each of the four categories of guided weapons, together with
several examples of cxisting missiles, are describcd briefly in thc following subscc-
Sec. 6.2 Guidance Mission and Performance 281

tions. As shown in Book 1 of the series, the major trade-offs and decisions required
ofthe N G C systcnl engineer are brought out by the mission and threat requirements.

Air-to-air weapons. AAM arc launched from one aircraft against another
aircraft-type target (see Figure 6-7). Missiles in this category include! the short-
rangc, Ill-guided Sidewinder missilc with a n approximate range of 3.000 ft; the
medium-range, radar-guided Sparrow missile with a rangc of about 20 nmi; and
the long-range, radar-guided Phoenix missile with a range of about 80 nmi. All of
thcse missiles use solid propellant rocket motors [Titus, 19851. The development
of improved stand-off weapons becomes increasingly important as modern defenses
make it more and more difficult for aircraft to penetrate heavily defended areas.
One drawback to current weapons possessing sufficient stand-off is that thcse arc
effectively limited to targets of high value and physical prominence. The limitation
surrounding high-value targets is a consequence of the high cost of the weapons
themselves, while that surrounding targcts of physical prominence is a matter of
limitations in the navigation and target discrimination capabilities of these wcapons.
T o a great extent, the guidance and control system determines both the cost and
performance of these weapons. The serious limitations of short-range AAM become
very pronounced when viewed against the increased maneuver capabilities of mod-
ern fighters. With longer-range AAM, the strapdown IRS has some good features
that allow it to be used to decouplc the homing head from missile body motion,
and compensate for radome aberration, thus improving homing accuracy [Baron,
19871.
The advantage of IR-guided tnissiles is that the seeker head is self-contained,
needs no connection o r equipment in the launch aircraft (except possibly to a cry-
ogenic refrigeration system), and probably results in the lowest total missile cost.
In general, an IR missile cannot be used in bad weather or at low altitude (where
most targets are now likely to be found), and in many cases was limited to attack
from the rear in order that the seeker should see lock-on to the hot jetpipes. Today,
new types of IR seekers offer vastly improved sensitivity and better ability to dis-
tinguish between real and false targets and, in the latest designs with Cassegrain
optics, focus the radiation on either one or a whole matrix of detectors, overcoming
virtually all of the previous problems [Gunston, 19791. Radar-guided tnisriles are
longer range and can either be semiactive, active, or both. A semiactive radar-guided
missile homes in on bistatic reflections coming from the target being illuminated
by the main weapon control A1 radar in the interceptor. An active radar-guided
missile (that is, AMRAAM) has its own radar, and hence does not require the
interceptor's A1 radar to illuminate the target while it is being guided to it. The
advantage of active radar guidance is that it provides a launch-and-leave capability
[Schleher, 19861.
At present, AAM development is centered around two basic classes. The first
class includes medium-range missiles that have a range of about 20 miles, while the
other kind of AAM is the close-range weapon which must be able to be fired at a
moment's notice and have such instant response and unprecedented maneuverability
 DEEP TACTICAL

AIRFIELDS POL. ETC (IIR)

MOBILE AA, SAMS. BATTLEFIELD SUPPORT

TANKS, APC
KNOWN TO

FORWARD AIR
CONTROLLER / REQUIRING GROUND
DISCRIMINATION
OF FRlENPlFOE

FRIENDLY FORCES

(A)

Figure ( a ) Mlsslotl Sccllarlo i'crspcct~vc(b) Air-to-C;round Attack ~ c c r l a r I(o( a ) co,,rte3,,

of F W Hardy. 1986 (1,) botn [Ka~natid Cloutrer, 1989/, 1989 AIAA)
Sec. 6.2 Guidance Mission and Perfonnance 283

FEBA \
-

(B)
Figure 6-11 (Continued)

as to kill a fighter crossing the bows of the launch aircraft. The seeker head for the
dogfight missile could be either RF radar or IR, or perhaps both [Gunston, 19791.
A detailed description of such a threat environment and the appropriate management
to employ are discussed in Book 4 of the series. In general, missile maneuverability
decreases with altitude. This case of AAM guidance and control concept against
maneuvering targets is particularly challenging.

Air-tomsurface weapons. The scenario shown in Figures 6-6 and 6-11

represents an ASM application. ASM are launched from an aircraft toward surface
targets, one of the most important classes of which comprises ships. Other targets
are far more challenging and demand either guidance against a point in a background
scene (as in firing a rifle) or self-homing. The following describes currently available
tactical AS weapons and their characteristics. Direct attack munitions (freefall) include
CBU, bombs, and mines. Tactical AS weapons for arms include Shrike, Sidearm,
and Harm. In a directfire an operator may be able to aim an E O or T V seeker in
the nose of the missile at the target and, by the operator's own action, lock it on
that target. The missile can then be released, after which it will home on the target.
One of the direct-fire weapons is the TV-guided Maverick missile, which is used
against small concentrated targets such as armored vehicles, gun positions, parked
aircraft, and communication vans. This missile is equipped with a two-stage, solid-
fuel rocket motor. Other weapons used include TOW, Hellfire, Skipper, Walleye,
Laser and IR Mavericks, Bullpup, GBU-15, and Laser Guided Bomb [Hardy, 19861.
In an indirect fire the missile is released and either flown to the target by the
operator, who sees a T V picture transmitted from the missile on the cockpit monitor,
or else uses inertial or DME as midcourse guidanceso fly near the target whereupon
it can be made to home by its own seeker. unfor;unately, anything calling for a
missile to send back a T V picture, and an aircraft to send radio command signals,
284 Guidance P r o c e s ~ ~ g Chap. 6

is wide open to ECM interference by the enemy [Gunston, 19791. Harpoon is one
example of an antiship indirect-fire ASM. The medium-range, TV-guided Condor
missile may be included in the category of ASM having an approximate range of
40 nmi. This cruise missile is usually used against heavily defended, high-value
surface targets. Wherever possible, the best approach to the problem of ECM in-
terference seems to be to turn the target into an emitter of radiation. Whenever
possible, an almost ideal method of turning the target into an emitter is to direct a
laser at it. As seen in Figure 6-lla, a laser designator can be aimed by forward
troops a t anything they can see in hostile territory, and any missile tuned to that
laser's wavelength will home automatically on the light (which may not be in the
visible band of wavelengths) scattered from the target. From an operational stand-
point, a particularly important challenge faced by those involved in weapons de-
velopment concerns how to effectively utilize in a low-cost manner stand-off air-
to-ground weapons. Here, stand-off air-to-ground weapons denote those weapons
which allow a single launch aircraft to release weapons from secure positions hidden
from threats located in close proximity to the targets (Figure 6-llb). The targets
may be fixed, HVT (such as bridge, airfields, or C3 sites), or mobile force targets
(such as armored fighting vehicles or air defense units). A major difference between
stand-off weapons and current inventory weapons is that the latter require target
overflight by the launch aircraft or lengthy periods during which LOS to the target
must be maintained from the launch aircraft or a designator aircraft [Kain and Clou-
tier, 19891.

Air-to-Surface Roles and Missions. The mission flight phases include launch
over a wide range of airplane speed and altitude conditions, missile midcourse flight
over a wide range of speed and altitude conditions, and terminal homing on ground
targets. Four separate missions, all involving different AS applications, are shown
together in a single mission scenario in Figure 6-1 la. The individual missions found
in the figure can be labeled close air support, tactical interdiction, deep tactical strike,
and defense suppression. Descriptions of each of these follow [Hardy, 19861.

Close A i r Support. In this mission, there is a large quantity of small mobile

targets including tanks, APCs, AAAs, mobile ADUs, and troops. Because of their
close proximity to friendly forces, it is imperative to be able to react quickly in all
types of weather conditions. The major threat facing friendly forces a t the forward
edge of battle area (FEBA) is from short-range IR and RF ADUs. Weapon require-
ments for this mission therefore include: shorter-range lock-on before launch,
smalllhard and largelsoft targets, high accuracy (hit to kill), and area saturation
(submunitions).

Tactical Interdiction. Here, the objective is to launch a strike against massed

enemy armor moving to the front. Staging areas include vehicle parks and ammo
dumps, but there is also tactical bridging, airfields, and POLS. The primary threat
is from mobile and fixed RF ADUs, which can be netted. For this mission, weapon
Sec 6.2 Guidance Mission and Performance 283

requirements entail medium stand-off range, variable warheads (smalllhard, for

tanks, and penetrating, for overburdened command post), and launch and leave.
Deep Tactical Strike. The focus of this mission is a preplanned stand-off
attack against high-value targets, both fixed land and ship. The greatest threat facing
this mission is from area and point defense ADUs such as SA-I1 and SA-12, for
example. Weapon requirements for this mission therefore include longer stand-off
ranges, larger warheads (against, say, industrial targets), and imaging sensors. This
last requirement is for target classification and aimpoint selection.
Defense Suppression. This mission is broken down into two separate mis-
sions, a defensive mission and an offensive mission. Defensive misrior~ means the
quick reaction and self-protection of strike aircraft against the threat of mobile and
fixed-radiating ADUs. The aim of the offensive mission is to roll back enemy air
defenses prior to delivering the strike force. Possible threats here include mobile
and fixed ADUs, and others listed in the Threat Definition. The Threat Definition
provides graphic descriptions of SAM, antiaircraft artillery, and laser weapon sys-
tems, illustrating the depth of technology. Included in the threat are countermeasures
to protect air defense systems for lethal suppression. Countersuppression techniques
are expected to include decoy emitters, fake signals, jammers, emission control,
cooperative engagements between adjacent sites, and passive sensors. An analysis
in Pastrick et al. [I9861 compared the military value of the five baseline weapon
systems (GBU-15, MAVERICK-F, MRASM, JTACMS, and HARM) and a variety
(49 different types) of potential defense suppression weapon development candi-
dates. Each weapon was evaluated against twelve threat units projected for the
future, including AAA sections, EWIGCI sites, nine different enemy SAM batteries,
and a tactical high-energy laseriparticle beam weapon. The enemy A D systems were
given a relative worth in order to determine and quantify their value in battle. Figure
6-12a shows the systems considered in the simulation. The scenarios that were
studied via the simulation model are shown in Figure 6-12b indicating the baseline.
weapons, candidate seekers, sortie depth of penetration, warhead weight, and stores
per aircraft. The study concluded that the required technologies to achieve a cost-
effective weapon system would best be directed toward a long-range, semiballistic
missile with a dispenserisubmunition warhead.
Important lessons that have been learned in conflicts ranging from those in
Vietnam to those of the Middle East are that enemy threats, particularly aircraft,
will undertake extreme maneuvers if it becomes a matter of survivability. Defense
suppression, as the entire range of offense options has come to be called when applied
against ground-based defenses, includes: direct attack with iron bombs, which the
Israeli Air Force has used effectively; attack with stand-off weapons such as anti-
radiation missiles used o n a wide basis by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam; use of
stand-offjamming aircraft to mask quiet penetrators with broad-band noise, as used
by the U.S. Navy in Vietnam; use of sophisticated jamming by the aircraft under
attack; use of chaffto hide penetrating aircraft, used extensively in the Soviet invasion
of Czechoslovakia; and penetration at very low altitudes to underfly the defenses.
286 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

1
RELATIVE TARGET SOVIET SYSTEM CLOSEST U. 8.
SYSTEM VALUE ESTIMATE COST ESTIMATE EOUIVALENT

1. SA.X.12 BATTERY 42 S100M PATRIOT

2. TACTICAL HEL 29 OcM HEL
3. SA-10 BATTERY 21 2W IMPROVED HAWK
4. SA.11 BATTERY 19 2W LMPROVEO HAWK
6. EWIOCI SITE 16 3W NOT ESTABLISHED
8. S A 4 BATTERY 16 17M HAWK
7. SA4 BATTERY 7 1W NlKE HERCULES
8. SA-S BATTERY 6 42M ROLAND
9. SA.13 BATTERY 6 1W NO COUNTERPART
10. SA.3 SITE 4 10M NO COUNTERPART
11. SA.8 PLATOON 3 SM CHAPARRAL
12. ZSU.2lH SECTION 2 BM SOT. YORK
r,

EASELINE WEAPONS: CANDIDATE SEEKERS:

.. OBU-16
MAVERICK
MRASM
1 E.0
2 IIR
3 MMW
JTACMS 4 RF
HARM 6 ARH
6 CO (30km CRUISE ONLY)
7 MAIIIR
6 ARHIMMW
O RFIRAC

33 km 70 km 200 km
126 kg 1 W k#
u*.lrpm U*rontl uhm

Figure 6-12 (a) Relative Worth o f Air Defense Systems (b) Candidate Weapon Concepts
(From /Pastrick rr a l . , 19861 with prnnisrionfrom AGARD)

Another offense option of growing importance in this list is the use of stealth tech-
niques to reduce the electromagnetic signature of both piloted and unpiloted vehicles.
During the time of the Hawk system's design in the 195Os, several of these techniques
were understood and incorporated into the design so as to counteract their use by
attacking aircraft. It was not fully realized at that time, however, just how extrelne
enemy aircraft pilots could be in the maneuvers they undertook in order to insure
survival, when this was on the line. A good deal of effort since that time has therefore
Sec. 6.2 Guidance Mlsslon and Performance 287

been directed at counteracting whatever means of escape an attacking aircraft might

employ at any time [Fossicr, 19841.
Surface-to-Air Weapons. SAM usually consist of antiaircraft and antimissile
weapons, and are typically mounted on mobile or portable launchers. SAM, in-
cluding land-based and shipboard versions, generally have a solid propellant, two-
stage rocket motor. Most of the early SAM uscd radio CLOS pridatrce. A second
method of guidance with early SAM was rcldc~rcori~rrratrd,uscd by several o f t h e most
widely deployed missiles in history such as the Hercules systcm. Hcrc, t\vo pcncil-
beam radars are used, usually operating on diffcrcnt frequencies. One is used to lock
on and track the target and the other to lock on and track the missile. 111 addition
to SAM, the vulnerability of today's warships has brought about the development
of ship-to-air tr~issilesablc to shoot down other missiles with great reliability and
rapidity. Ship-to-air missiles that can be loaded on to their launchers by hand are
often part of a weapon system that fills half a frigate and costs more than the basic
ship [Gunston, 19791. T h e total height and range envelope are such that ground
commands to the missile arc required between launch and acquisition by a terminal
homing sensor. The target spectrum is broad, including high- and low-flying aircraft
(for example, multiple and maneuvering targets) assumed to be capable of sensing
the missile's presence and performing evasive maneuvers, and formation flights
designed to counter a one-on-one firm lock-on and track. Simulations show that a
midcourse speed loss due to an overresponsive control systcm inducing too much
drag limits the range. High response is required after lock-on to cope with maneu-
vers. With both midcourse and-terminal phases, considerable avionics are on board,
and sharing computing functions is desired. Finally, even though the threat is con-
sidered advanced, techniques and hardware proven in the past are desired to min-
imize program risk [Goodstein, 1972(a)].Requirements for SAM design are dictated
by missions, as shown in Figure 6-13a. This figure shows altitude versus downrange
of four regions: outer air battle, area defense (bombers, ASM, ballistic missiles),
point defense (cruise missiles, fighters, ballistic missiles), and CWS (leakers). Area
defense threat includes multiple bombers, missiles launched from bombers, multiple
fighters, and stand-off jammers. Major issues in area defense threat involve fire-
power, target discrimination, and guidance accuracy [Hiroshige, 19861.
Area Defense. An area defense analysis is depicted in Figure 6-8. As illus-
trated in this figure, E C M environment and target models must be included in an
area defense analysis. Figure 6-13b explains the characteristics of firepower multiple
illuminators. As can be seen from the figure, track-while-scan or launch-and-forget
systems are required in order to increase firepower multiple illuminators. Require-
ments for area defense in a multiple target/ECM environment can be summarized
as follows for high firepower, for target~resolution,and for high PK. First, in the
case of firepower, the following requirements are essential: multiple illuminators or
high data rate (more than 10 sec) track-while-scan for semiactive systems; active
seeker o r passive seeker; high average velocity; and short time for search, acquisition
(see Figures 6-3a and 6-3b), and terminal homing. Next, in the case of target
 go -

80 -

70 - Area defense
(Bombers, air-to-surface
60 - missiles, ballistic missiles
Altitude
50 -

40 -

30 - Point defense
(Cruise missiles, fighters,
20 - ballistic missiles)

10
ClWS (leakers)\
1 1 10 100 1000
Downrange (miles)
(A)

. Slant range (miles)

Initial acquisition
Establish track
Threat evaluation
Weapon assignment
Missile launch
+
-
100
20
I
40
I
60
I
80
I
100 120
I

Range for missile

I
140 160 180 200

seeker target acquisition

1st intercept-
Kill assessment
300
2nd Missile launch /
-
Time between launch

-
U)

Ng = Number guidance channels

Number of targets illuminated at
> 10 hitslsecond
Vt = Targel velocity
Vm = Misslle velocily
(B)
Figure 6-13 (a) Missions Dictate Requirements for Surface-to-Air Missile Design (b) Fire-
power Multiple Illuminators (To increase firepower, multiple illuminators, track-while-scan
or launch-and-forget systems are required.) (c) Point Defense Against Ballistic Missiles He-
quires High Interceptor Velocity (d) A Large Missile with a High Mass Fraction llocket Motor
Is Ilequircd for the 13allistic Missile Threat (e) Delayed Acquisitioti 8; Track initiation for
Cruise Missiles Ileducc the Numbcr of Possiblc Engagements (1) Multipath Environment
Tracking (Tracking in a multipath environment is biased and erratic until after the image is
resolved.) (g) High Fire Ratc (3.000 rdslmin) (Gun systems are effective at ranges less than
1.5(Io meters.) (11) Inside 2.(KKl it the Line-of-Sight Hates 8; Accelcratiotls Increase Rapidly to
3 radlscc 8; 10 radlscc2 at 2(K) ft. respectively (Courrrry o J K . Hiroshkr, 1984)
 Sec. 6.2 Guidance MIssIon and Performance

Altitude (1,000 ft) 10 20 30 40 50 6,O 70 8 0 90 100

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
slant range (miles) ( , , I
r
I Ballistic missile -
/
lnterceptorl altitude Ballistic missile
missile
/ slant range

Seconds 2 -

3-
Entry angle = 45 deg
WlcDA 2,000 lblsq ft
4 - Intercept altitude = 30 kft
Slant ranae
'z ....- -
= 4.5- .miles
Flight time = 3.8 sec
Average velocity = 6,250 ftlsec

Launch weight per 1,000 HI

ol m r o c k e t motor weight
Weight propellant
Total webht of the
rocket motw

klocity at the end of boost (fUsec) kaquired for average

velocity a 6,250fUsec
(D)
Figure 6-13 (Continued)
 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

Range (miles)

2-
4-

Time (seconds) ,- Radar horizon equation

R h = m + , r q
Rh = Radar horizon (miles)
Hr = Radar antenna height (ft)
Ht = Target altitude (ft)

1nsufficiel:t time for guidance

close-in-weaponsystem (CIWS) required
(E)
+1.0
+0.8-
+0.6-
+0.4-
-
+0.2- After resolution
Boresight
elevation 0
During resolution Pre-resolution

-------_______
9

angle,
degrees -0.2 -

-0.4-
-0.6-
-0.8-
-1.0
gAo
O
2,OO"
Target range - meters
-.,VVV 6,uOO 8,000

-
-
Borealght equillbrlum ~CSSII~WS
normel closed loop tradc C-band
radar- 1 beamwldth. 60 It above
water. Tsrget at 100 It allltude
10,000
L

(F)
Figure 6-13 (Contmued)
Sec 6.2 Guidance Mission and Performance 291

At least N cumulratlve hlt Cumulative hlt

1.o 30
0.8
20
0.6
+IT
0.4 10
0.2
0 0
0 500 1,000 1.500

Single shot hlt probablllty Total miss distance

PSS MlSSD
(MI

500 1,000 1,500 500 1,000 1',500

VT sin o = VTD
'i=-
R ~2 + x2

acceleration

- --
- --
0.01 I I 1 I
-
-
0 1400(800 2,000
200 600 2,000
X(ft) 0 1goo
X(ft)
(H)
Figure 6-13 (Continued)
 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

Figure 6-14 Area Defense Scenario

(From [Kuroda and Imado, 19881, O 1988
AIAA)

resolution (see Figures 6-3c, 6-3d, and 6-3e), the requirements include: range,
Doppler, and anglc rcsolution, trajcctory shaping to improve rcsolution (see Figure
6-3c); and multi~nodcwith additional discriminants. Finally, rcquiretncnts for high
PK includc (as shown in Sections 6.5.2 and 6.7 and in Chapter 8) homing time equal
to ten titnes that of guidancc time constant, maneuverability o f three titnes that of
the targct, and short guidancc ttme constant [Hiroshige, 19861.

Example 6-5: Area defense. The area dcfcnse scenario is summarized

as follows [Kuroda and Imado, 19881. The object to be protectcd from enemy threats
(see Figure 6-14) is surroundcd by multiple tnissilc launchers in ordcr to have a
counterattack capability against such threats. If the launchers arc all spaced equi-
distantly from the object's center, the launcher either nearest to o r furthest from
the target is used. This is done to satisfy the requirement that the target aspect be
as close as possible to 180 deg, as shown in Example 6-3. Bascd on this, the missile
launcher near thc vertical plane containing the object's center and the target should
be uscd. It 1s thcrcforc reasonable to introduce a two-dimensional approximation
restricting, for simplicity, the motion in a vertical plane. As discussed in Example
6-3, thc nlissilcs must bc as closc as possible to the head-on gconlctry against the
targcts, which thcmsclvcs rnay bc dcsccnding at any incidencc anglc, and aiming at
any position. It is possiblc to effcct a desirable lock-on gconlctry in somc spatial
rcgions by adjusting the missile flight-path angle at lock-on to the targct incidence
angle using midcoursc trajcctory shaping. The more steeply the targct dcsce11ds,
the greater the flight-path anglc is required to be at lock-on. T o investigate the
attainable ranges o f ~nissilcflight-path anglcs corrcsponditlg to diffcrcnt lock-on
+
positions, the perfornlance indcx = y(~,,,~.,,,) is selected where the lock-on time
Sec. 6.2 Guidance Mlssfon and Performance 293

determined from the next terminal condition [x(t), h(r)l = (x, II),,,., .,,,,,,,, diacd.
rloik .(.,,is
The performance index is to be maximized for large missilc flight-path angles, and
minimized for small ones. Using optimal control, the missilc is navigated from the
ground through the predicted lock-on point, where the pursuer is supposed to lock
onto the target. This corresponds to the midcoursc guidance phasc. It can be seen
that thc optimal control law results in a wider interceptiblc range of target incidence
angles than docs Al'N guidancc law. A wider successful counterattack region is
obtainable with the optimal guidancc law than with the less sophisticated APN
guidancc law. Basically, n~issilescan intercept the targets successfully when non-
linear optimal control is used to guide the tnissilc in the midcoursc phase, which
minimizes the deviation angle at lock-on from 180 dcg head-on, and when I'NG is
used to guide the missile in the homing phasc.

Point Defense. In a special point defense, the ballistic missile nosc cone with
ballistic coefficient is equal to 2,000 Iblft? The discrimination of nosc cone from
decoys and tankage is at 10OK ft altitude. The velocity of the nosc conc is 20,000
ftlsec at 30,OW ft altitude. Thc nose conc deceleration increases from 6 to 60 g's at
30,000 ft altitude. Point defense against ballistic nlissiles rcquires high pursuer ve-
locity, as illustrated in Figure 6-13c [Hiroshige, 19861.

Ballistic Missile Threat. A large missilc with a high mass fraction rocket
motor is required for the ballistic missilc threat, as illustrated in Figure 6-13d.
Requirements for ballistic missile threat can be summarized as follows. A rocket
motor is required to achieve an average velocity of over 6,230 ftlsec over 3.8 seconds.
The time to intercept is too short for extensive terminal guidance correction, as
shown in Example 6-3, and hence the interceptor should be launched into an an-
tiparallel trajectory to minimize the target deceleration component perpendicular to
the LOS. Warhead, rather than guidance accuracy, is the determining factor in
achieving a high PK [Hiroshige, 19861.

Low-Altitude Cruise Missile Threat. In a special point defense threat of a

low-altitude cruise missile, target acquisition is delayed due to late unmasking and
cross-section reduction techniques. Target track in the vertical plane can be inac-
curate due to multipath. Delayed acquisition and track initiation for cruise missiles
reduces the number o f possible engagements, as can be seen from Figure 6-13e.
Requirements for the low-altitude cruise missile threat can be summarized as fol-
lows. First, the reaction must be short. The terminal guidance requires E O o r M M W
radar to resolve multipath possibilities (see Figure 6-13f). The propulsion may be
traded off for more warhead, eliminating the possibility of a second shot in a shoot-
look-shoot policy. If the target altitude can be estimated, homing guidance in azi-
muth and constant altitude in elevation is a possibility. Finally, multimode guidance
is also a requirement [Hiroshige, 19861.
294 Guidance Processing Chap. g

Close-in-Weapon System (CIWS) Threat. In a close-in-weapon system

(CIWS) threat situation, all targets have penetrated the area and point defense svs-
tems. The engagement zone for CIWS is inside the inner boundary of guided mis-
siles. Figure 6-13g demonstrates that high fire rate (3,000 rdslmin) gun systems are
effective at ranges less than 1,500 meters. Inside 2,000 ft, the L O S rates and acccl-
erations increase rapidly to 3 radlsec and 10 radlsec2 at 200 ft, as illustrated in Figure
6-13h. Requirements for CIWS can be summarized as follows. First, the reaction
time must be fast. Accurate target tracking requires less than 2 mrad with angular
rates of 10 rad/sec2 and angular
.
acceleration of 10 radtsec. T i m e o f flights of up to
2 seconds are required for an accurate intercept predictor. High projectile velocitv
is employed to reduce time of flight, and high fire rate is employed to impro\,c
cumulative probability of hit. Dispensing of decoys, chaff, and physical obstructions
are also part of the requirements [Hiroshige, 19861.

Surface-to-Surface Weapons. The scenario shown in the lower portion of

Figure 6-6b [Heaston and Smoots, 19831 represents an SSM application. Launch is
followed by a gathering phase in which the missile enters a wide FOV or wide
beamwidth of the cont;oier. During this same phase, the command system takes
control of the missile. directing" it to the LOS whcrc a narrow F O V or beamwidth
is used to track the target. Commands are thcn sent to the missile causing it to
follo\v this LOS, thereby achieving impact with the target. This type of command
guidance is termed CLOS. SSM encompass thc whole rangc of missiles from
ground- or shipboard-launched assault weapons such as antitank, antiship battlefield,
and coastal support wcapons, to the largc ICBM generally known as strategic weap-
ons [Titus, 19851. Figurc 6-15a shows a rail-launched missile, boostcd to flying
speed, and then powcrcd by a cruisc cnginc on a relatively long subsonic flight. The
flight is programmed so that a long, high-altitudc midcourse flight is followed by
a low-lcvel dash and homing on a specified targct. Some of the major mission issues
which the enginecr is faced with are shown in Figurc 6-ljb. The major trades and
decisions required of the cngineer arc brought out by the mission requirements
[Goodstein, 1972(a)].

Target T y p e s . Guidcd wcapons can also be grouped according to the type

of targct for which thcy arc used, for cxamplc, antisubmarine warfare (ASW) mis-
siles, antiship missilcs, and antitank missilcs. Surface targcts arc generally statiollary
or slow moving, although thcy may be difficult to dctcct and track. O n the other
hand, acrial targcts arc highly mancuvcring and unprcdictablc, but usually easier to
acquirc. From a guidancc and control point of view, acrial targcts stress terminal
guidancc thc most.
Antisubmarine Warfare ( A S W ) Missiles. Virtually, all thc ASW missiles in
usc at present dcrivc their guidancc information mainly or wholly from sonars. ThC
narnc conlcs from SOlrrtd .Ya~,igatiotrAid Ratl<qir!q, and thc acronym's similarity with
radar is not misleading. Like radar, sonar can be activc or passive, the lattcr of which
simply comprises a listening device, sc~lsitivcci~oughto dctcct the propcllcr or 170I1
Sec. 6.2 Guidance Mlwlon and Performance

Figure 6-15 (a) Example S-S, Surface-to-Surface Mission (b) Mission Desires and
Constraints, Example S-S (From [Goodrtein, 1972(a)] with permirriorr/?orn .4GARD)

noises of a submerged submarine under way at a range of many kilometers. Most

sonars, however, are of the active type. Although detection by sonar is still in use,
modern detection means rely on EM detection. Extremely powerful sonars are built
into the underside of the hull of ASW surface ships, and into the bows of most
submarines. In most warships, sonar systems can also be used as an underwaer or
secure means of short-range communication. Sonar communication is also used to
transmit digital data in ASW systems, and, for example, can transmit target position
information from a sensor platform to a ship equipped with ASW missiles. In the
296 Guidance Processing Chap.

same way, U.S. Navy submarines equipped with the Subroc missile nus st bc able
to use sonar communications to keep the missile heading for the updated target
position throughout the airborne phase of its trajectory. It remains to develop the
ASW missile intelligent enough to home on its quarry by itself [Gunston, 19791,

Antiship missiles. Currently, a large group of missiles have guidance

systems tailored to this role alone, and are almost useless for any other. However,
the attack of maritime targets presents some similarities to and some differences
from other operations. Sea-skimming techniques have been developed that reduce
the time available for the ship to take defensive action, together with improved night
and poor-weather capability and improved resistance of the missile guidance system
to E C M . Nonetheless, saturation tactics are still required to ensure successful pen-
etration of shipborne defenses. This means that the attacking aircraft have each t~
launch more than one missile. Moreover, because ships move a significant distance
from the time of initial detection to the time of missile impact, the guidance system
of each missile must be autonomous. Further, because high-value targets such as
capital ships are usually surrounded by escorts, the missile must incorporate au-
tonomous target selection capabilities. Radar seekers remain the preferred choice,
capable of covering a sea area sufficiently large to ensure that, in spite of any errors
in target position fed to the missile by the aircraft at the time of launch, target
detection is still achieved. As defenses improve, stand-off range will have to increase,
thereby making the navigation and guidance problems more difficult. Dual-mode
sensors, for example, combined IR and passive radar, may be requircd [Barnes,
19871. Events in the South Atlantic during the Falklands campaign highlighted the
threat a sea-skimming missile can impose on a surface ship. The basic rcquiremcnts
of a sea-skilt~rtlirqtt~issilcarc that it can fly just above the sea surface at a high speed
over long distanccs in cxtrcmcs of weather, and with a high probability ofachieving
a kill. Such a weapon system may be launched from a land-based vehicle, a ship,
or an aircraft, and has a flight trajectory as shown in Figure 6-16 [ S u t and ~
Windley, lV841. An important consideration in the development of s u c h a weapon
system is an appropriate autopilot in the missile altitude control system (ACS). Book
3 deals with the dcsign of the ACS of a sea-skimming missilc niancu\~cringfrom
an intermediate or midcourse height to a sea-skimming trajectory.

Antitank missiles. An antitank missile, as notcd in Gunston 1197'11. is by

far the silnplcst of all missilc classcs in most rcspccts, dealing with targets consisting
of large niasscs of nictal which are rclativcly slow moving and unablc to dodge
anything. Hostile armor of this type has traditionally bccn engaged a t closc range,
after direct visual sighting. Compared with ships and aircraft, their ECM and IItCM
capability has bccn at best low and usually nonexistent. Another aspect of tllcsc
targets is that therc is no spccial problem in carrying a warhead able to picrcc their
armor and causc havoc inside. As to the missiles thcnlsclvcs, most have advanced
sight systems that offer the operator the best sight that optical and IR technologY
can provide. Today, some of the most attractive antitank missiles are semiactive
Sec. 6.2 Guidance Mission and Performance

AIRCRAFT
HEIGHT

.
SEA SURFACE
OR
snip

TIME

INITIAL FINAL
LAUNCH
APPROACH
PHASE CRUISE PHASE
PHASE
d Y

Figure 6-16 Flight Trajectory of a Sea Skimming Missile in the Vertical Plane
(Frum [Slrrrotl otld Windlry, 19114/ ~uirlrpcnniiriut~fiottl SCS)

laser homers. Hayman [I9831 describes an IR imaging antitank missile that is fired
and forgotten. It is a shoulder-launched weapon that lofts to an altitude of approx-
imately 150 meters and then homes toward the targct using PNG. A gyro-stabilized
seeker is precessed to the target by pointing commands. These pointing commands
are developcd from an imaging sensor by a new tracking algorithm that performs
well in a highly cluttered background.

Range and function. Missiles can also be classified by range into long-,
medium-, and short-range missiles. Barnes [I9871 proposes to consider long-range
missiles and short-range missiles separately, proposing furthermore to subdivide
the long-range category into those intended to attack high-value fixed targets on
land and those intended to attack ships. T o attack targets such as airfields located
well behind the FEBA, large payloads are required and the weapons must be de-
livered with high accuracy. Current capability requires overflight of the target by
the manned aircraft. As air defenses continue to improve, stand-off weapon systems
provide the only means of protecting the attacking aircraft, to the extent that missiles
must have sufficiently long range to allow them to be launched from friendly air-
space. Another distinction is made between tactical and strategic missiles. Broadly
speaking, the terms are used here to denote the kind of target rather than its distance
from missile launch. Strategic weapons are taken to be those that strike at enemy
heartlands, either in counterforce attacks or in countervalue attacks. Tactical wcap-
ons are those that influence a battle, and the battle may be by land, sea, air, or
altogether. The tactical missile seldom has a nuclear warhead, while the strategic
kind seldom has any other.
The strategic category of missiles includes the ground-launched Minuteman
series of ICBM with a range of more than 7,000 nmi and the Poseidon submarine-
launched missiles with a range of about 2,500 nmi. Both missiles are equipped with
 298 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

multistage solid-propellant rocket motors. These missiles achieve speeds of over

10,000 nmi per hour and altitudes of over 500 nmi. The future generation of strategic
missiles may also include cruise missiles which move at subsonic speeds (about 400
nmi per hour) and at low altitudes of about 5,000 feet. Cruise missiles are powered
by jet engines and resemble a small aircraft. These missiles can be manufactured at
low cost and, because of their low-altitude flight trajectories, can escape detection
by ground-based radars. Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory mainly de-
termined by the gravitational field of the earth. In a short time the missile is ac-
celerated by a single or multistage rocket propulsion system to the initial speed for
the ballistic trajectory. In the propulsion phase, a guidance and control system sta-
bilizes the missile in flight and guides it according to a preset program for the flight
direction, to put the missile on its predetermined trajectory. In the terminal phase,
a guidance and control system can govern the accurate delivery of warheads, correct
for atmospheric or other disturbances, and even home the vehicle onto the target.
Ballistic missiles are classified according to their range [Vriends, 19871.

6.3 MULTIPLE MODE GUIDANCE MODELING

The information available, the maneuvers required, and the control mechanisms in
use may differ from one portion of the pursuer trajectory to the next. Thus, different
guidance laws may need to be used to acconlplish the mission for the entire trajec-
tory.

6.3.1 Midcourse Guidance

Midcourse guidance refcrs to the process of guiding a missile that cannot dctect its
target when launched, from the launch point to the target's proximity, and is pri-
marily an energy managerncnt and inertial instrumentation problem. The midcourse
guidance law is usually a form of PNG with appropriate trajectory-shaping modi-
fications for minimizing energy loss. The two types of midcourse guidancc com-
monly used diffcr only in the coord~natcsystems employed. In one missile steering
signals are dircctly supplicd in an agreed-upon coordinate frame. In the other an
inertial navigator is updatcd by cxtcrnally supplicd target information. Thcse tw70
types of midcoursc guidancc can further be classified as incrtial. common position
grid, command incrtial, conlmand, command to L O S (bcarn rider), antiradiation
homing (AIIH), and correlation matching. The first of thesc, incrtial midcourse
guidancc, has a rangc-dcpcndent accuracy, high rcsistancc to C M , and a range-
depcndcnt rclativc cost. Common grid midcoursc guidance is charactcrizcd by
accuracy, modcrate resistance to C M , and a moderate rclativc cost, whilc command
to L O S has a rangc-dcpcndcnt accuracy and low resistance to C M , and is r c l a t i v ~ l ~
incxpensivc. Antiradiation homing (ARH) posscsscs modcratc accuracy, a low shut-
down thrcshold in thc prcsencc of C M , and is ~noderatclycxpcnsivc. Finally, tor-
relation matching is charactcrizcd by a high accuracy, modcratc rcsistancc to CMq
Sec. 6.3 Multlple Mode Guldance Modellng 299

and a high relative cost [I-Iardy. IOXhl. As described in Exa~nplc6-1, the imple-
rncntatioll of midcourse guidance in SM-2 was the result ofadding to SM-I an IRU
together w ~ t hn~issile-shipcomniunication links. The IIIU comprises an instrument
package and a s p e c i . ~ l - p ~ ~ r pconlputcr.
os~ Included i l l the instrutncnts are three ac-
ccleromctcrs, two rate-integrating gyros for measuring angular motion at right
angles to the missilc body, and a space-stable, single-asis platfor~ilfor monitoring
missile roll. The primdry f~unctionofthe co~nputeris to solvc the equations ofmotion
to keep track of missile position, velocity, and attitude in the inertial coordinate
frame cstablishcd before launch. In the AEGIS application, c o n ~ m a n dniidcourse
guidance is ~ ~ s c~vhile
d , in TEIIRIEII and TARTAR applications, inertial midcourse
guidance is used [Witte and McDonald. 19811.

Command midcourse guidance. With the AEGIS combat system, the

ship uses direct control to command-guide SM-2 during midcourse flight. This is
depicted in Figure 6-4e(i). Missile and target tracking are provided by the ANISPY-
IA radar, which also f~inctionsas the shipboard data link transceiver. The ship
weapon-control computcr is used to compute steering commands, which are then
transmitted to the missile on the ~iplink.The missile in turn acknowledges receipt
using the dohvnlink. A form of PNG \ ~ i t hsuitable trajectory-shaping modifications
serves as the nlidcoursc guidance lalv. The primary function of the IRU is that of
an attitudc reference system, converting the uplink guidance commands in inertial
coordinates to steering conlmands in missile body coordinates. Prior to intercept,
there is a specified time at which an illuminator is assigned by the weapon system
to the engagement to support the terminal phase. Following this, the missilc is given
a command to search for the target based on updated seeker pointing and Doppler
frequency information. Hdndovev, ~vhichis the term for the change from midcourse
to terminal guidance, takes place after the missile seeker acquires the target. The
use of midcourse guidance brings about a marked improvement in intercept ca-
pability relative to SM-1 in both downrange and crossrange [Witte and McDonald,
19811.

Command-to-LOSmidcourse guidance. Figure 6-17 depicts a radar

command to LOS guidance for air-to-surface environment [Hardy, 19861. Most of
the early SAM used radio command-to-LOS guidance. The operator(s) tracked the
enemy aircraft in a steerable telescope, fired the missile, and then sent steering
commands by means of a radio link to keep the missile constantly aligned with the
target. Even today, radio command-to-LOS guidance is very important, though all
command systems using a radio link are vulnerable to countermeasures. Details of
command-to-LOS guidance are presented in Section 6.4.2.

Inertial midcourse guidance. Inertial guidance is a self-contained tra-

jectory guidance method and demands an IMU, or portions thereof, to sense missile
motion and generate guidance signals to control the missile to fly to a specific
location. Inertial guidance is used in various simplified and relatively less costly
forms to enable the missile to attack well-defined (usually long-range) stationary
 CONSTANT
RANGE SPHERE
TRAJECTORY

NULL PLANE

Figure 6-17 Radar C o ~ l l t n a n dto LOS Guidancc (Courtesy oJF. W . Hardy, 1986)
Sec. 6.3 Multiple Mode Guidance Modeling 301

targets, the user having first translated the present or future position of the target
into numerical coordinates acceptable to the guidance computer. Inertial guidance
trajcctorics arc usually optimized to achieve maxinium missile range. Ballistic tra-
jectories, which arc deter~nincdby a consideration of gravitational forces and air
resistance and do not depend on aerodynamic lift for missile support, are commonly
used in inertial guidance. The trajectory data arc storcd in the missile prior to launch.
The missile through its internal sensors, such as the Ills and accelcron~cters,also
measures its position relative to the la~~tlchpoint. I>cviarions from storcd and mea-
sured position data arc converted to acceleration commands which arc executed
through the missile control system [Titus, 1983].
In the TERRIER and TARTAR applications, given that command guidance
is not practical since these combat systems do not track the missile, SM-2 uses inertial
midcourse guidance for self-navigation, A three-dimensional search radar is used
to provide target data, which is in turn used by these ship systems to direct the
missile to a point in space. Actually, the missile may be directed to a succession of
points if the target is changing course and/or speed as shown in Figure 6-le(ii).
When necessary, new guidance points, along with target position and velocity data,
art communicated to the missile via the uplink. The ability to downlink missile
information allows the ship system to monitor flight progress. In the midcourse
guidance law, the steering equations are explicit functions of the current and desired
boundary conditions (position and velocity). For this reason, it is termed explicit
grridorlce. The missile's IRU supplies the missile with knowledge of its own position
and velocity. As with the AEGIS system, there is a predetermined time in the flight
at which an illuminator is assigned by the weapon system to support the terminal
homing phase. The IRU and uplink data are used to compute the Doppler frequency
and angle information required for target acquisition by the missile seeker. The
greater uncertainties in missile position and heading associated with the TERRIER
and TARTAR systems mean that terminal handover, which follows acquisition,
cannot be delayed as long as in AEGIS. Intercept coverage of TERRIER and TAR-
TAR ships with SM-2 is also significantly increased relative to SM-1 against both
incoming and crossing targets [Witte and McDonald, 19811.

Example 6-6: Midcourse guidance for stand-off tactical weapons.

Stand-off (or midcourse) guidance is required when the missile is launched at such
long ranges from the target that either the missile seeker cannot "set" the target or,
if it can, the available guidance information is of sufficiently poor quality that it is
unusable. In such cases the guidance law usually consists of a preprogrammed strat-
egy such as "maintain launch heading and a constant altitude" or "fly directly at
where you think the target might be." In some cases tactical missiles do not have
seekers, and the complete trajectory can be thought of as a type of nlidcourse guid-
ance. A requirement exists for an autonomous, all-weather, jam-proof, quickly
targeted midcourse guidance capability for use in tactical stand-off weapons. Pure
inertial guidance has always been an attractive option for midcourse guidance, but
the cost of high-accuracy (high-quality) gimballed inertial navigators may preclude
 Guidance Processing Chap.

NAVIGATION

lNlTlALlZATlON DATA AIRCRAFT

[POSITION. VELOCITY. ATTITUDE1 AIRCRAFT
- I - - - -
WEAPON

I SYSTEM
MISSILE VELOCITY & KALMAN FILTER
ESTIMATOR
I
CORRECTIONS TO NAVIGATION
t PARAMETERS (I SENSOR ERROR ESTIMATES

Figure 6-18 Airborne AlignmentiCalibration Concept (Froin [Perliilurter aiid

Fitsihm, 19801 with permission fvom AGARD)

their use in "throw-away" tactical weapons, and the inaccuracy o f low-cost strap-
down inertial navigators with low-cost sensors has prohibited their use unless PO-
sition aided by an external source. The primary cause of the inaccuracy in these
strapdown navigators is gyroscope and accelerometer sensor errors. As low-cost
sensors typically have large turnon-to-turnon bias shifts, through a careful in-flight
alignment and calibration process the predominant sensor errors can be reduced by
an order of magilitude. This performance whcn coupled with a precise position and
velocity initializa;ion, projecccd to be available from the tactical weapon-carrying
aircraft through hybrid LORAN or GPS inertial systems, makes unaided strapdown
inertial navigation a viablc midcourse guidance candidate for tactical weapons. The
in-flight initialization, alignn~ent,and calibration technique is illustrated in Figure
6-18. The strapdown navigator is initialized with currcnt position, velocity, and
body attitude information from the aircraft navigation system, after which the sys-
tem keeps current its own na\,igation solution. The Kalman filtcr estimator contains
an crror model for the missile navigator which ~nathematicallydescribes critical
strapdown gyro and accelcromcter error terms. This crror model is driven by the
trajectory dynamics as scnsed by the strapdown system. Periodically during the
mated flight thc Kalman filtcr samples aircraft and missile velocity and computes
velocity, alig11111cnt. and scnsor corrections to thc strapdown system. Thcsc cor-
rections arc fed back to thc navigation proccssor and incorporatcd into the navigation
solution. The estimation proccss is itcratcd until weapon rclcase. To enhance ob-
scrvability of dominant crrors, aircraft mancuvcrs can bc performed [Pcrln~utter
and Fitschen, 19801.

6.3.2 Terminal Guidance

In those cascs whcrc a tcrn~inalseckcr is iockcd onto a target and providing reliable
tracking data (short-range combat), the stratcgy is callcd tcn,rir~alp i d a r ~ c e .Thc dy-
Sec. 6.3 Multiple Mode Guldance Modeling 303

namic rcquircmcnts of tcrnlinal guidance are usually niore stringent because all the
trajcctory errors which have accumulated must be corrcctcd in a very short time.
As discussed in Chaptcr 2, typical terminal guidancc sensors include laser, TVIvidco,
imaging IR (IIR), MMW, microwave, and ARH. Thcse typcs of sensors provide
different typcs of tcrminal guidance tracking.

Example 6-7: Laser guidance. Lascr-guidcd wcapons homc on rc-

tlected cncrgy. Whcn an observer directs a laser beam a t the intended target, a spot
of laser light is caused to appear on thc target. As the weapon detects rcflccted laser
light from the target, the autopilot stcers a course to impact on the lascr spot. The
guidance
- system using special equipmcnt is capablc of detecting the lascr cither a t
night or in bright sunlight. The laser beam is produced by a device known as a
designator, which can, be man-portable and which can also be carried in an aircraft
or in a RPV (rcmotcly piloted,vehicle). There .
, must be a direcr, LOS between the
designator and the target, and the laser must operate during terminal guidan'ce.
Although the target may be screened by dust or smoke, laser systems are normally
designed to operate durlng marginal weather conditions and low clouds [Christal
and Mackcy, 19841.

Example 6-8: Fiber-optics guidance (FOG). The optical-fiber guid-

ance (see Figure 6-19a) involves a gunner locaccd in the ground station ~ v h oreceives
information on the general location of enemy troops. Based on this information, a
missile is launched toward the general target area from the ground station. Following
a climb to cruise altitude, the operator begins a search and acquisition phase (see
Figure 6-19b). The near-constant altitude and heading may be preselected. During
this time, while viewing the target scene presented by the missile-borne imaging
sensor, the operator has control over the sensor FOV, look angle, and the missile
flight path. Having acquired a target of interest, the operator then initiates the ter-
minal trajectory. Interesting to note is that throughout the flight, the launch vehicle
may remain in a protected position and is not subjected to direct fire from enemy
systems. There is considerable freedom in selecting the optimum trajectory both
for launcher protection and for maximizing the total system effectiveness. The use
of a human operator during missions and other unique features determine what the
performance requirements are, which include trajectory ;haping directed at optih-
izing the operator's performance in the areas of target acquisition and terminal guid-
ance. This in turn dictates specific aerodynamic performance of the flight vehicle
as well as the missile-borne sensor. In order to take advantage of the unique qualities
of optical fiber, a launcher design would have to allow engagements from defilade.
This means near vertical launches necessitating unique missile control and aero-
dynamic capabilities. Additional requirements are placed on the missile trajectory
to account for the pilot-in-the-loop and the functions of navigation and target ac-
quisition that the pilot must perform. In addition to this, deploying a bidirectional
optical-fiber data link is required. Thetocation of the target is generally known but
the actual detection of the target is a function of the ground controller which uses
 Guidance Processing Chap. 8

SEARCH/ACQUISITION
TERMINAL

LAUNCHER/CONTROL
(A)

DATA COLLECTION

LAUNCH OPERATOR
VEHICLE DISPLAY
ow
Figure 6-19 (a) Optical Fiber Guided Missile (b) Target Acquisition (Fro~n/Holder,
1983 & 19841 ujirh ycnnissiotz.fiot11 SCS)
Sec. 6.3 Multiple Mode Guidance Modeling 305

information transmitted downlink from the missile-borne scnsor. Models used in

the primary computer sin~ulationsinclude target location and composition. envi-
ronmental factors, sensor parameters, and operational requirements. Outputs are
target acquisition probabilities and specific sensor performance data. The TV sensor
information is transmitted downlink for both human and electronic processing, and
guidance commands arc then transmitted uplink to the autopilot [Holder, 1983,
19841.

Example 6-9: STANDARD Missile-2 terminal guidance. In the self-

navigation phase that follows midcourse guidance, known as terminal guidance,
SM-2 homes on the target until intercept takes place and the missile warhead is
detonated. The necessity for a terminal guidance mode is a consequence of the fact
that midcourse guidance is not suitably accurate, even at short range, to regularly
achieve miss distances less than the lethal radius of the warhead. Every SM-2 missile
variant employs the same terminal guidance equations. The SM-Zterminal guidance
loop is shown in block diagram format in Figure 6-4f. Characteristics, such as the
angle of arrival, of the signal received from the target will be affected by the type
of targct and by missile motion. M~ssilepitch and yaw motion are ren~ovedby
inercially stabilizing the seeker antenna that receives the signal. The two main ourputs
of the missile receiver are an LOS measurement and a closing velocity or Doppler
measurement. These measurements are used by the guidance computer to generate
steering commands in accordance with a PNG law. The autopilot, just as it did
during the midcourse guidance phase, converts the guidance computer's electronic
commands to missile tail deflections in order to vary the trajectory of the. missile.
The lateral missile motion provided by this process, coupled with longitudinal mo-
tion provided by propulsion, causes the missile ro fly on an intercept course with
the target. The endgame is the final phase of flight in which there is a high-speed
encounter with the target. Crucial to this phase is accurate timing of the warhead
detonation. When the missile is in close proximity to the target, a small radar aboard
the missile, known as a target detectiondevice or fuse, senses the target's
presence. The optimum time to trigger warhead detonation is then computed. The
missile also contains a contact fuse to detonate the warhead on impact should the
missile collide with the target before the computed optimum time [Witte and
McDonald, 19811.

Example 6- 10:Terminally-guidedsubmunitions (TGSM) guidance.

With TGSM, there is the problem of achieving accurate guidance in very limited
space and at low cost. Following Trottier [1987], this example looks at the design
problem of attacking a tank from a TGSM initially in level flight. The assumption
of an upper limit to seeker sightline rate resulted in a low TGSM speed and hence
a large wing size, and it may therefore be preferable to go to the more usual vertical
approach from parachute suspension. The last several years have witnessed increas-
ingly sophisticated flight control and seeker technologies for guided weapons. The
implementation of inertial strapdown reference systems that rely on low-cost fiber-
306 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

optic gyros will undoubtedly contribute greatly to the solution ofthe cost and weight
problems associated with more complex navigation, flight control, and seeker at-
titude reference systems. The requirement for ground-attack aircraft to effectively
engage n~ultivehiclearmored targets in both close air support and battlefield inter-
diction roles places increasing demand on the intelligence and adaptability of the
weapon system employed. O n e solution to the problem is the use o f a weapon
which consists of a flying dispenser (bus vehicle) which is released by an aircraft
some distance from the target and which subsequently delivers a number of smart,
autonomous TGSM into the target area. T w o weapon concepts are investigated
solutions to the problem. The first concept involves "shoot-to-kill" sensor-fused
munitions which, following release from the bus vehicle, climb to provide the
titude they require for target search, deploy a parachute to stabilize vertical descent,
rotate an off-set detector about the vertical while scanning the ground in a decreasing
spiral scan, and fire a high-velocity slug at the target upon acquisition. The other
concept involves "hit-to-kill" aerodynamically controlled submunitions equipped
with a seeker which guide to the target and detonate a shaped charge warhead at
impact.
Improved warhead effectiveness can be obtained when hitting the top armor
from a near-vertical dive. This adds two constraints to the conventional guidance
problem: steep impact, and minimum angle of attack at impact. Whcn TGSM arc
released from a bus vehicle, the scenario is many-on-many in that several TGSM
have to handle several targets against various backgrounds and levels of clutter. The
targets arc armored vehicles 6 x 3 x 2 m moving in columns on roads, moving
in clutter, stationary in clutter with engine running, and stationary in clutter with
engine off. If one considers one TGSM only, the scenario becomes one on many.
A typical TGSM attack scenario is sho~\.nin Figure 6-20a. Its flight comprises three
phases: (1) the fly-out phasc during which the bus vehicle is dispensed from the
aircraft and flies up to reach a fixcd altitude h at which the TGSM are released.
Upon release, the TGSM initiates the deployment of its lifting and control surfaces
a,nd becomes ready for target search;; (2) the search phase during which it flies level
(or glides) while scanning the ground for a target; and (3) the tcrminal homing or
track phase during which it guides to hit the target. During the tcrminal ho~ning
guidance phase, the scenario is one on one. Figure 6-20b depicts the geometry of
the scarch phasc. The TGSM is at altitude h and flies lcvel at vclocity V,,,. I t is first
postulated that the TGSM is cquippcd \vith only onc scckcr which can opcratc in
t w o modes: (1) a scanning modc for the scarch phasc, and (2) a tracking nlodc for
thc tcrminal homing guidance phase. The seeker searchcs the ground at a look-down
anglc a. The maximum slant rangc R at which the target can bc dctcctcd is lill1itcd
by the detection rangc if thc scekcr uscs an M M W radar. Thc altitude / I is limited
by cloud cover if thc scckcr uscs passivc 111. If the look-down anglc is fixed, both
11 and R are linked. The vclocity V,,, is also linlitcd by the characteristics of thc
scarch modc. From altitude /I and level flight, any stationary object on the ground
will appear as moving angularly at angular speed u = I/,,, sin' all^. If the look allg]~
is 45 deg and the maximum gimbal rate of the scekcr is 25"/s, thcn, for 11 = l j O
Sec. 6.3 Multlple Mode OufdanceModellng

RELEASE Of
THE TQSM

DUAQC

DEPLOYMENT OF
FINS AND WEKiS

ELEASE OF THE IMPACT

BUS VEHICLE ANOLE

> t I I I
200 400 600 800 I000 1200 1400

--------,----------.-
REFERENCE
-
LINE O F SIGHT
T I TARGET
U I

- - DOWNRANGE x
(B)

Figure 6-20 (a) Sketch of a TGSM Attack Scenario (b) Search and Initial Conditions for
Terminal Homing Guidance (From [Trottier, 19871 with permisrionjom AGARD)
 308 Guidance Processing Chap.

IPulse Rocket I
Target
Tracking - (Chap. 8.9)
lntegraled
-
Sensor
J Sensing/Flight
Reference S Control
stem
ISFCR~
(Chap. 5)

or

-
Inlcgraled Inerlial
Navigation System
(Chap. 5 )

Figure 6-21 Midcourse Phase NGC Processing

m, the preceding equation yields V,,,lh = 0.873. Beyond this value, any attempt to
eventually track a target is hopeless. Since moving targets are also considered, the
relative velocity must account for an inbound component of targct velocity. For
Ih = 150 m, and inbound target velocities of 20 mis, the T G S M velocity cannot
exceed 110 mls. A terminal homing guidance law that will guide the TGSM to a
near-vertical hit with the tank must be determined [Trottier, 19871.

6.3.3 Error Analysis Model Development

Midcourse guidance system analysis. The missile rnancuvcrs are rcla-

tivcly small in the midcourse phase. Hence. thc resulting crror analysis is uscd to
study the hcading crror of the missile to the intercept point at the handover from
midcoursc phasc to terminal phase. The hcading crror at handovcr has an important
effect on the miss distancc and servcs as the initial crror of thc terminal phase. Thus,
to compute this heading crror, the crror sourccs need to be analyzed. Thcy include
instrumental initialization error and drift, rcccivcr noise, guidancc algorithm, and
flight control response. Computing the heading crror requircs a realistic mathe-
matical model as shown in Figure 6-21. The IRU onboard provides thc flight vehicle
position and velocity in inertial coordinatcs. Thc targct tracking radar uplink pro-
vidcs t11c targct position and velocity. Thc trockir~,~ filter is uscd to attcnuatc noisc
cffccts and thcrcforc rcducc the hcading crror at handovcr. Trajcctory shaping and
optimization is applicd to causc the flight vchiclc to rnancuvcr cffcctivcly. that is,
with minimal cncrgy loss and in thc shortcst timc, along tllc dcsircd trajccrory. The
output of trajcctory shaping and optimization is a tnidcoursc steering command in
incrtial coordinatcs. A pulse rockct firing control is uscd to i n ~ p r o v cthc propulsioll
pcrforrnance o f a flight vchiclc in order to tnaxinlizc thc tcrmillal vclocity and hcllcc
to cxtcnd intcrccpt rangc. The FCS can bc cithcr tl~rustcontrollcd or scrvo cot]-
trollcd. If thrust vcctor control is uscd, a thrust 1 ~ ~ 1 0co~tra~ocld
1. ,qccrc.rororis nccdcd to
gcncratc thc thrust anlplitudc and dircction commands. A thrcrst c~ectnr(nr~tr.c~ll~'r is
 -
Sec. 6.3 Multiple Mode Guidance Modeling 3Og

-
Homing and End Game
Target Trackin Procasing
Maneuver
Modeling (Fig. k 8 )

Actuation

Figure 6-22 Terminal IJhase NGC I'rocessing

used to follow thc thrust vector command. The thrust amplitude obtained by con-
trolling the exhaust mass flow rate, and the thrust direction generated by controlling
the thrust vector control servo are combined to construct a thrust vector control.
If a servo control is used, an autopilot is used to follow the trajectory shaping and
optimization commands and to stabilize the system during flight. The actuator
(which consists of control surface and servomechanism) is used to change flight
vehicle attitude and therefore change flight vehicle trajectory. The servomechanism
may be pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric, depending on the maximum hinge mo-
ment of the control surface.

Terminal guidance system analysis. Steering of the missile during the

last few seconds of flight has the most direct effect on terminal miss distance. Hence,
the terminal phase trajectory of a tactical missile represents the most critical period.
A homing sensor providing accurate information about the target's location relative
to the missile contributes to the overall success of a mission. A steering law capable
of achieving intercept in the presence of target maneuvers and measurement errors
also contributes to the mission success. Environmental turbulence and gust, instru-
ment initial bias (IRU initialization error and drift), target maneuvers, seekerltracker
noise and bias, guidance law capability, flight control response and dynamic non-
linearity are all important factors that affect the miss distance in a homing-guided
missile. For a radar-guided missile, on the other hand, the radome refraction is a
very important factor. The error analysis of terminal phase trajectory is illustrated
in Figure 6-22. Prescribed error sources and realistic mathematical models of the
guided missile are included in the error analysis study to assess the miss-distance
statistics. A multimodel seeker is considered in Figure 6-22. The relative motion
among any of the multiple targets and the flight vehicle is detected by R F detection,
IR detection, andlor T V detection. In RF detection processing, a radar search mode is
needed to acquire target positions in the FOV of the seeker, and a tracking mode
is then taken to track and lock on the target. Search mode is activated when the
estimated target-flight vehicle range is within the detection range of the RF seeker.
There are three major search patterns used in the search mode: spiral scan, raster scan,
and sector scan. In the tracking mode, range-tracking servo uses the range gate technique
to position the target return signal in the middle of the gate. In case of gate stealing
due to the effects ofjamming or clutter, a coast mode or gate search mode is required.
 310 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

As soon as the target position is acquired in the FOV of the seeker, the target is
locked on and tracked by the seeker. However, outputs of RF detection are con,
taminated by disturbance noise. The RF seeker is then taken to obtain the LOS rate
which is proportional to the misalignment of the target tracking error. The latter
is the error between the output of RF detection and that of positiorz sensing in the
seeker. A rate-sensing feedback is also needed to improve stability and reject distur-
bances. The sensor used for sensing the servo angular positions are: synchro (Ac
excitation), resolver (AC excitation), and potentiometer (DC excitation). A gyro-
scope/tachometer sensor uses gyroscopes or tachometers to measure the angular rat,
of the seeker servo. A gyroscope is usually A C excited, and hence needs to be
accompanied by a demodulator.
In the IR detection mode, a signal detected by the IR detector is also contam-
inated by disturbance noise. An IR irnage processor is needed to provide a two-dl-
mensional image with target and background. The IR image processor consists of
a head assembly, scanners, IR optics, 1R detector, IR cooling, preamplifier, am-
plifier, LED array, synchronization, and display. A T V camera of C C D type is
usually used to acquire a two-dimensional image for T V detection. The video-tvackitig
servo consists of an auto video tracking (AVT) unit and a tracking servo. AVT can
generate a target-tracking error with respect to the tracking gate and thus always
keep the target at the center of the tracking gate (or tracking window). AVT also
provides the gate positions in the elevation and azimuth axes. The tracking servo
has the feature of tracking on stabilization. That is, based on stabilization, the el-
evation and azimuth gate errors given by AVT are thus polarity correct. A target-
tracking algoritl~ttiis then used to take the LOS rate from the aforementioned mul-
timode seeker. The target-tracking algorithm output is the input to the guidarlce
algoritlztn. Finally, an accelcration (orflyensation, an autopilot, and an actuator together
cause the flight vehicle to maneuver so as to intercept the desired target.

6.4 GUIDANCE ALGORITHM

A guidancc algorithm is formulated for the sake of ensuring pursuer-target intercept.

As can be scen from Figurc 6-1, guidance algorithms can be classified according to
whether thcy are preset or direct, both of which are investigated in this section.

6.4.1 Preset Guidance

This section d~scusscsthc coticept of a prcsct guidance algorithni based on an cs-

ccllent description of guidancc techniques appearing in Vriends [1Y87]. Thc most
important input for a missile guidance system relates to the targct position. A preset
guidancc lncthod makcs use of prelaunch information on thc target position and
motion provided to thc missilc system's fire control subsystcm. During missile
flight, no targct information is scnscd. O n thc contrary, flight path corrections to
the missile are dcrivcd from missile statc infortnation obtained by navigational or
Sec. 6.4 Guidance Algorithm 311

flight instruments inside the missile. With a prcsct guidancc systcm, the missile is
guided along a desired cruise flight path to the target intercept position. The actual
position of the n~issilcis compared with the prestored flight profile data and, if
necessary, commands are generated for the missile control systcm to return to the
required trajectory. Inertial guidancc is one such example. In the vertical or pitch
plane, the nlissilc is controlled by an altitude-hold control loop using a simple bar-
ometric altinlctcr, and in the horizontal or yaw plane by a hcading command loop
using an angular ratc gyro which monitors any change in hcading to keep the n ~ i s s ~ l c
in the prcsct flight direction. More sophisticated prcsct gutdance systems for targets
at medium or long range contain an attitudc and hcading refcrencc systcm (AHRS).
As shown prcviously in Chapter 5 , the AHRS is a strapdown unit consisting
of three ratc gyros, three low-cost accelerometers, and the associated electronics.
The ratc gyros provide input signals for attitudc estimation and for autopilot rate
damping (flight stabilization). Accelerometers are used for autopilot feedback and
self-leveling of the strapdown system, and can be used in combination with other
navigational sensors to yield accurate estimates of missile attitude and heading. An
example of a reliable, accurate and cost-effective AHRS is the ring-laser gyro system
or IRS. The laser gyro senses angular rate with respect to inertial space and has n o
moving parts, making it insensitive to errors due to mass properties (which affect
rotating mass types of gyro). The most accurate preset guidance method can be
obtained with an INS. The primary sensors of the INS are three accelerometers and
three rate gyros mounted orthogonally. The accelerometers sense the nongravita-
tional acceleration of the missile while the rate gyros sense the angular rate of the
missile. A gravity computer calculates the acceleration due to gravity from actual
information on the missile's position. Together they provide data to determine by
integration the missile velocity and position in a navigational frame of reference.
In preset guidance, the frame of reference is either physically or analytically
established within the missile. Accelerometers placed on a stabilized, gimballed plat-
form are physically isolated from the pitch, yaw, and roll motion of the missile.
Platform stabilization is provided by a set of gyros which can be torqued to establish
the desired navigational frame. When the accelerometers are mounted directly on
the missile structure, they can be isolated analytically from missile rotational motion
with the help o f a set of strapdown rate gyros. The missile airframe angular rate
with respect to inertial space is provided by the rate gyros and is used to calculate
the attitude of the accelerometer measurement frame with respect to the navigational
frame o f reference. This attitude information is used-in a coordinate transformation
algorithm to compute the acceleration in the navigational frame. Although less
accurate than the platform system, the strapdown system offers a cost-effective
solution for the autonomous inertial guidance of guided weapons in their midcourse
guidance phase. Furthermore, since the gyros and accelerometers take measurements
in an airframe coordinate system, their output signals can be used for autopilot
functions. Most ballistic missiles are guided in their boost phase by a platform INS
because of the high accuracy demanded. Inertial navigation, such as a dead-reckoning
method, is afflicted with navigational errors that increase with time of flight. TO
312 Guidance P r ~ ~ e S s i t I g Chap. 6

cope with this problem, position and/or velocity updates can be made to reinitialize
the position and velocity integrators and even to estimate observable errors of the
INS (Kalman filtering). Update systems or navigational aids such as radio and sat-
ellite navigation systems, star trackers, and earth reference systems are used. These
last can make use of a mapping radar, an IR imaging sensor, or a T V sensor onboard
the missile to obtain position fixes. A Doppler radar can provide ground-speed data
for velocity updates.
An earth reference system developed for long-range cruise missiles to update
the INS periodically is TERCOM. Along the preestablished missile flight path,
several check areas are chosen to reinitialize the INS. Above the check area, a radar
altimeter with a good horizontal and vertical resolution measures elevation of the
terrain, resulting in a sequence of altimeter readings along the missile track. The
sequence is correlated with a prestored digitized map of the check area taken from
the memory unit to determine the best estimate of the actual position and subse-
quently to correct the INS. Guided weapons with preset guidance are passive, at
least over the unaided portion of missile flight, and hence are difficult to jam. After
launch thev are autonomous: the launching" station or the fire control unit is not
involved in the guidance phase. The weapon has a fire-and-forget capability. Preset
guided weapons are used against stationary targets or slowly moving targets. For
moving targets there is a requirement for a direct guidance method in the terminal
phase of the engagement.

6.4.2 Direct Guidance Methods

Direct guidance methods, which are characterizcd by the use of turning target in-
formation in the prelaunch phase and during the guidance phase, make it possible
to intcrccpt moving targets. The guidance system is dominated by a guidance law
(see Scction 6.5) that formulates the relation between sensed target or missile in-
formation and guidancc commands for the missile, and is implemented in the guid-
ance computer or the correcting network. Referring once again to Figure 6-1, those
algorithms that fall under the category of direct kuidance include command guid-
ance, beam-riding guidance, and homing guidance (see Section 6.4.2). A real-life
guidance system is also presented in Scction 6.4.2 to exemplify a direct-guidance
application. At least one of the guidance sensors maintains LOS contact with thc
targct and provides targct illformation to the guidance and control system [Vricnds,
19871. The basic principles of guidance-loop dcsign for missile systcms arc well
cstablishcd, and future systcms arc unlikely to differ conccptually in any significant
way from prcvious systems. That is, the fundamental limitations of dircct-guidance
methods remain the same although the implclncntation of such systcms will, of
course, be crucially dependent on the currcnt sratc of hardware development.

LOS guidance. There are two subsets of the LOS guidance which diffcr
basically in their n~cchanisms.LOS guidance is a silnplc conccpt and can bc iln-
plclnented in terms of a command to line-of-sight (CLOS) (Figurc 6-23a) or bcam
rider (Figure 6-23b). I n CLOS guidancc, a n uplink is uscd to transmit guidallcc
Sec. 6.4 Guidance Algorithm 313

signals from a ground controller to the r~iissilc.l'hc iitnction of the beam-rider

guidance scheme is to track an E O beam directed a t the targct. The missile is first
guided near the ccntcr o i t h e beam and theti flies toward the targct. The bcatn used
to direct the missilc to the targct has two fi~nctions.It can be used to automatically
track the targct, or it can be directed to point at the targct by sonic other means.
As noted in I'astrick ct al. [1981], the bcani-rider tiiissilc requires onboard autopilot
cotiipensation since the projector docs not know the missile's location once it is en
route. l ' h e CLCIS scheme, however, docs track the missilc and thus cotiipcnsatcs
for its position prior to transmitting the guidance signal via the wire link.
A typical LOS guidancc trajcctory is illustrated in Figurc 6-23c where the
missile performance depends on the gconlctry and the nlissile-target speed. As the
targct speed increases, the acceleration of the missile must also increase. A rear
receiver is required for these guidancc schemes. With the rnissilc remaining in the
beam that tracks the target, relative positions of the target and missile are shown
at various tinics in Figurc 6-23c. The individual targct and missile velocities during
a real cngagctncnt determine xvhat the actual trajcctory will look like. What is dcm-
onstrated in this figure
~,is that LOS guidance should not imply to the reader that
the rnissilc has only to fly up the bcam to intercept the target. Quite the contrary,
the missile must be able to turn or develop velocity that is equal to the LOS rate
and perpendicular to the LOS. as stated previously, in order to intercept a fast-
moving targct. The angle between t h e tracking bcam and the missile axis dem-
onstrates the requirement for a broad-beam rear antenna [Heaston and Smoots,
19831. LOS guidancc, in contrast to homing guidance, does not require a seeker in
the front of the missile. This allows the nose to be shaped so as to minimize the
aerodynamic drag [Heaston and Smoots, 19831. As shown in Figure 6-23c, LOS
guidancc requires continuous maneuvering and the miss distance increases with
range. The resulting miss dlstance is iLJ = R ~ ~ E+ : E;,, where E, is the target-
tracking error and ,, is the missile-tracking error [Hiroshige, 19861. A detailed
development of the beam rider and CLOS implementation is provided by Clemow
[1960]. A description of the bang-bang approach to LOS guidance commands can
be found in Harmon et al. [1962]. Ivanov [I9751 studied radar-based guidance meth-
ods and typical implementations of missile-borne seekers. A CLOS guidance scheme
is employed by Kain and Yost [I9761 for a defensive ship, where optimal linear
filters are used to reduce the inherent beam jitter. In Thibodeau and Sharp [1969],
a pulse-duration scheme is proposed for a wire-guided missile. LOS guidance works
- -

very well for missile interception as long as a stationary target is being tracked. In
this case, almost perfect guidance can be achieved without the man-in-the-loop
tracking error. However, improper tracking occurs in a realistic situation which
leads to errors. The performance with respect to miss distance is shown to be better
than 1 ft with a 90 percent confidence level, assuming that a reliable round is fired.

Command guidance. Command guidance is the guidance of a vehicle by

means of electronic command signals generated outside the vehicle and sent to the
receiving mechanisms contained in the vehicle. The basic concept of command guid-
ance is to study the relative position and velocity between target and missile, and
 314 Guldance Processing Chap. 6

PROJECTOR

ACCELERATION

.- ----------------- ---
OPTICAL LINK

EU~ER
I----- -- --- - - - - --- ------ - ---. 1

YORE C O Y L E X
ACCELERATION -
(B)
Figure 6-23 (a) CLOS Scheme (b) Beam Rider Scheme (c) Beam Rider o r C L O S
(i) Beam RiderICLOS Guidance Geometry and Equatlon (ii) Beam RideriCLOS
Z 1981 AIAA (0(ii).fiotrl
Guidance Trajectory / / a / & Ibjfrotn [Pastrick er a / . , 19811, t
[Hrasmn and Sinoors, 19831 m i ~ hpermissionfro~~iG.4CI.4Ci

to uplink commands to the missile to adjust its flight in order to intercept the target
a t a certain position. Missile. target, and track are required to be tracked precisely
by a guidance (radar) station on the earth's surface or in an aircraft. T h e information
sensed is used to shape guidance commands, which the missile may receive in the
following ways: by a guidance wire or radio-frequency data link, via the radar or
laser beam used to track the missile, or over very thin hairlike wires that uncoil
from the missile as it flies. That there is n o need for a seeker onboard the missile
is the chief advantage of command guidance. Its chief limitation, however, is that
as intercepts occur at greater distances away from the radar there is greater deg-
radation in measurement accuracy and hence in guidance- accuracy as well. As a
result, system firepower is increasingly limited. The nlissile accuracy is limited by
the noises in the systems. The effect of thesc noises for command guidance is k n o w
to be strongly dependent on the range to the object tracked; the dependence on
range to intercept is much wcakcr for either active or scnliactive homing guidance.
Command guidance systcms can be less expensive than homing guidance systems.
Ncverthcless, few command guidance systcms arc currently being built because it
is bciicvcd that command-guidance miss distances arc too largc for successfu~in-
terceptions. In order to identify those conditions where the less expensive commatld
guidance systcni accuracy may be satisfactory. a systematic analysis of command-
guidance miss distance would be most useful. Such an analysis can be found in
Chapter 8.
Sec. 6.4 Guidance Algorithm

Guidsna Equation
% = Vmf, KgY') (%Ia )
non
the bcom

5 -?$EeZn olzia
s) = Filter and lead network
Om = Missile angle = y
0 = Target angle = y
T
,,R, = Range to missile
R
R.,. = Range to target = Rl + VT tg
R
I -- Intaapt range
i) Beam RidedCLOS Guidance Geometry and Equation

'inttrccpt T ~ g aPath $am&

/ /Tracking Beam

Equal 10 2 'limes lhrget Velocity

From [Hcaslon and Smmts, 19831

with permission from GACIAC
ii) Beam RiderICLOS Guidance Trajectory

(C)

Fgiure 6-23 (Continued)

 \\\\
Radar 8 Command
Link
> &\'
Missile T r a c k i n g 2 \

Target Tracking
I
COmrnand H I I
computer
Radar
Link Fan Beam Scanning
(A) In Azimuth

Figure 6-24 (a) C;eneric Comnland Guidance (Surfacc-to-Air) (b) Track-Whilc-

Scan Radar for Command Guidancc (Surface-to-Air) (From /Heasfor#and Smoofs,
316 19831 with prnnirsionfrorn GACIAC)
Sec. 6.4 GufdanceAlgorfthm 31 7

Two-Radar Command Guidance. A conlnland guidance system, as

shown in Figure 6-242 [Heaston and Snloots. 19831, requires a t least two radars,
one to track the targct and the other to track and send guidance comnlands to the
missile. As this is taking place, the ground conlputer drives the two sets of readings
(bearing, elevation, and range for each) into exact coincidence, thereupon finding
the warhcad. This generic command guidance is based on separate target and missile
tracking radars, with the command link included in the missile tracking radar. This
was one of the first methods to result in a practical SAM, although it is now regarded
as obsolete. In the previous figure, thc solid arcs emanating from the tracking radars
are the transmitted radar signals, which are reflected by chc target in all directions.
The dashed arcs represent the reflect~onin the direction of the target tracking radar.
In order to determine the target's range and angle, the target tracking radar processes
this reflected signal, sending the information to the guidance computer. (A beacon,
or radar transmitter, carried by the missile is triggered by the signal received frqm
the missile tracking radar.) The beacon transmits a strong signal back to the missile
tracking radar, illustrated by the solid arcs emanating from the missile. This guar-
antees accurate tracking of the missile and ensures a data link from the missile to
the ground. A ground computer receives the missile's range and angle, computes
the missile trajectory necessary to intercept the target, and generates commands
which are sent to the missile via the command link. This link is illustrated by the
r
jagged line between the missile tracking radar and the missile. Missile guidance for
target intercept is achieved by monitoring the target and missile positions and re-
fining the trajectory calculations throughout the engagement. A critical computation
compares target and missile position data which are then used to send a burst com-
mand to the missile that detonates the missile's warhead. Because of its complexity,
this type of radar command guidance is restricted to long-range SAM against high-
speed, maneuvering targets. Low-data-rate radar command guidance is suitable for
updating an inertial navigation midcourse guidance system. The advantage of com-
mand guidance is that it uses the more powerful radar and fire control computer
on the ground to solve the intercept guidance problem, thereby simplifying missile
electronics. However, the accuracy of command guidance falls off with increasing
missile range, which leads to a requirement for either a large missile warhead or a
shot-range e n g a g e m e n t d h e system is to be effective [Schleher. 19861.
In the 1950s, the United States employed radar command guidance in the NIKE
.
air defense svstem. Each site where the svstem was deoloved , had a number of radars
to track the target and missile. Commands were sent to the missiles via the missile
tracking radar. The PATRIOT SAM is an example of an advanced radar command
guided system with a multifunction phased array (electronically scanning) radar.
The radar performs several fire control and guidance functions simultaneously in a
time-sharing mode and gives the system a multiple target engagement capability to
make it more difficult to saturate the air defense system. The PATRIOT system,
in particular, uses a radar command link. In this system, a semiactive radar target
tracker resides in the missile that relays all of its signals to the ground for processing
by a powerful computer. The process of tracking via the missile, referred to as TVM,
is applied to prevent the accuracy problem previously mentioned. The computer
318 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

generates commands and returns them to the missile to both guide and control the
radar target tracker. This data link must be very secure to prevent jamming or
interference from influencing the system's operation. Wire command links are Used
primarily with antitank missiles that possess a relatively short range.
A more modern implementation of radar command guidance is shown in
Figure 6-24b, where the operation of a track-while-scan radar is depicted. T w o fan-
shaped beams are scanned at right angles to each other to obtain elevation 2nd
azimuth angles and the ranges of both target and missile. Using this information,
a computer calculates the trajectory the missile should fly in order to intercept the
target, and commands are then sent to the missile via a command link to control
the missile. For successful operation, the missile must remain in the volume scanned
by the two tracking beams [Heaston a n v m o o t s , 19831.
Command-to-line-of-sight( c ~ sguidance. ) Command-to-line-of-
sight (CLOS) or line-of-sight (LOS) guidance represents a derivative of the com-
mand guidance technique. CLOS is a realization of the three-point LOS guidance
law. In this method, the missile approaches the target along-the line joining the
control point and the target. At the control point, the target is tracked by a radar,
an optical system, or an electro-optical system. The missile on the other hand is
being tracked either by the same tracking system (differential tracking: radar or EO
tracker) or by a separate missile tracker (EO or IR "hot spot"). Thus, it is sometimes
called three-point guidance, where the three points represent the tracker, missile,
and target. If the missile can stay on a straight line between the tracker and the
target (that is, the LOS), then it will hit the target. These guidance sensors provide
the angular error signals E of the missile fro111 the LOS td the target in elevation
and in azimuth. As shoxvn in Figure 6-23c, E = er - 0,,,,and E is n~ultipliedby
an estimate of the actual missile range R,,, resulting in linear displaccn~cntfrom the
LOS. The lateral acceleration commands a, arc shaped by a suitable crror compen-
sation network G(s) to guarantee stability of thc guidance loop and a fast response
to the linear displacement errors. That is,

In con~pensatingfor a displacement error through an accclcration command, an

anticipating network is required to stabilize thc guidancc loop. Consequently, carc
must bc takcn in selecting a statistical filter to scparatc thc noisc from thc LOS
mcasurcmcnts.
The accuracy of thc CLOS guidancc loop in tcrms of thc stcady-statc crror is
improvcd by adding a fccdforward command to thc crror compcnsation command
a,. The feedforward command u,,,is the demandcd latcral accclcration for thc missile
to stay on the rotating LOS. This accclcratior~command is dcrivcd from mcasurc-
mcnts of the LOS rotation and estimates of missile range, velocity, and accclcration
in the direction of flight. That is,
I,,,, = whcrc y,,,
v,,,+,,, = 2@r+ R,,, eTl V,,, (6- 1b)
is the mancuvcr rcquircmcnt [Hiroshigc, 19861. Thus, thc guidancc accclcr~tio~~
Sec. 6.4 Guidance Algorithm

Missile
airframe

FeedboCk loop

Correction/ Infrared
a~lpenwtion 4
sensor
network
, >
t I

Feedforward loop Observing Aiming

I Operolor
I
Figure 6-25 Semiautomatic CLOS lor an Antitank Missile illepri~rfedtuirll per-

command u, is equal to a, plus u;, in a CLOS guidance system. Figure 6-25 shows
a functional block diagram of an antitank, semiautomatic CLOS missile, depicting
the feedback guidance loop and the feedforward loop. The IR sensor, which is
boresighted with the optical axis of the sight, senses the angular deviation of the
missile from the LOS to the target. The feedforward loop accounts only for the
Coriolis acceleration. Additional feedforward acceleration terms are required when
large LOS rates occur, as is the case with CLOS for short-range air defense. If a
track-while-scan radar or another method is used to provide more information to
the guidance computer, it becomes possible to implement guidance laws other than
the three-point method. Trajectory shaping can be exploited to reduce the demanded
lateral acceleration by inserting more lead angle capability or to increase warhead
effectiveness by approaching the target's most vulnerable side. CLOS is best suited
for use in short-range air defense and antitank systems. Inasmtuch as the guidance
equipment at the control point is dedicated to only one target throughout the en-
gagement, guidance accuracy is inversely proportional to range and firepower is
sharply restricted [Vriends, 19871.

Beam-rider guidance. Beam-rider guidance, which is a three-point

method, utilizes a sensor located in the missile to generate internal signals responsible
for ensuring that the missile remains within a beam that is aimed at the target. The
beam may be either radar or laser in nature, and is generally maintained by a sub-
system on the launcher. A narrow laser or radar beam is projected accurately towards
 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

Beam Riding
Missile

. I

Missile Illumination Radar

I-ouncher ( T r a c k s Target
Figure 6-26 Beam-Riding Guidance (Fvoi~i[Heastorr a ~ ~Slnoofs,
d 19831 with per-
inissiotr j o m CACIAC)

the target using radar or an EO, automatic, or manual tracking unit. The beam is
modulated and the missile carries a rearward-looking beam receiver so that the
missile can determine its up-down and right-left positions in the beam and guide
itself to the bcam axis. The result is an interception trajcctory according to the three-
point method which is also used for CLOS [Vriends, 19871.
Radar beam-riding guidance is illustrated in Figure 6-26 in which the illu-
mination and target-tracking radars are shown as a single unit. The transmitted
signal, which the missile receives and uses for guidance, is represented by the solid
arcs. Thc dashed arcs in the figure
- signify the targct reflection in thc direction of
the radar, which picks up this echo signal and processes it to ensurc that the radar
beam always remains pointed in the direction o f the target. In order to guarantee
that the signal is received as the missile turns, the missile receivcr (sensor) antenna
needs to have a wide enough beamwidth in the rcar aspect. This situation occurs
in the case of certain intercept geometries like those associated with high-speed
crossing targets. Here, the missile attains a large velocity component perpendicular
to the center of the bcam as it attempts to follow the beam's angular motion during
targct tracking. Thc type of missile trajcctory found with a bcam-rider guidance
system is drawn in Figurc 6-23c which is thc same as that with a C L O S guidance
system. A disadvantagc with beam-rider guidance is that angle tracking crrors in
the guidance beam result in posttlon errors that arc dircctly proportional to thc range
bctwccn the targct trackcr and the targct. Conscqucntly, an above-standard tracklllg
system that has slnall angle tracktng errors is csscntial for accurate guidancc a t 101%
ranges [Hcaston and Smoots, 19831. Laser bcanl-ridcr guidance is uscd for antitank
(SSM and ASM), atltihclicoptcr (AAM), and short-range air dcfcnsc n~issilcs(SAM)
bccausc of its high clcctronic countcrmcasure rcsistancc. MMW bcanl riding is an
all-wcathcr altcrnativc for laser bcam riding. Radar bcam riding is still uscd in older,
medium-rangc air dcfcnsc and antiship n~issilcsystcms [Vricnds, 1987).
Sec. 6.4 Guidance Algorithm 321

Example 6-11: Talos beam-riding midcourse guidance system.

This example is based on an excellent article by Gulick ct al. [19821. In a beam-
riding system, anytime the missile leaves the axis of a conically-scanned radar beam,
acrodynan~icsurfaces will deflect so as to cause the missile to return to the beam
axis. In essence, the vector that indicates the angular dircction and distance to the
scan axis must be determined by the missile. The amplitude of the modulation
produced by the conically-scanned beam can be used by the missile to determine
this distance, while the phase of the amplitude modulation with respect to the scan-
frequency rcfcrcncc signal determines thc angular dircction. The conically-scanned
radar b c a ~ nshown in Figure 6-27a was employed by the beam-riding system for
Talos (see Example 6-2). This, coupled with a sinusoidal variation of the pulse
repetition frequency, provided the missile-borne receiver with the necessary signals
for measuring missile angular distance and direction perpendicular to the nutation
axis of the guidance beam, as illustrated in Figure 6-27b. A free gyro was used to
roll stabilize the missile in flight so that error signals would be directed to the correct
aerodynamic steering surface.
Pulse groups were radiated by the guidance transmitter at a nominal rate of
900 pulses per sec, and each group consisted of three pulses that were coded by
intcrp~~lsc timing to identify the guidance beam to the missile. Transmitting nutation
position information was accomplished by frequency modulating the pulse group
rate at the nutation frequency of 30 Hz with a deviation of k 5 0 groups per sec. An
inertial system was necessary onboard a ship in order to compensate the pulse group
modulation for roll and pitch. Figure 6-27c illustrates a simplified block diagram
of the beam-rider system. Once detected, microwave pulses were passed through
a decoder to produce one pulse for each valid code group. The decoded pulses were
subsequently applied to a 30-Hz amplitude detector, a 30-Hz frequency modulation
detector, and a beacon transmitter. Outputs from the frequency modulation detector
became references for the steering channel phase comparators. The latter served to
resolve the in-phase component of the amplitude modulation detector output to
obtain steering-error signals for each wing plane. At some point in flight, the fire-
control computer programs the direction of the guidance beam so as to cause the
missile to fly the desired midcourse trajectory. By automatically range tracking the
missile-borne beacon pulses, it was possible- to determine missile range. This was
then used by the fire-control computers to control the beam program and compute
the time at which a homing enable pulse code was transmitted to the missile, al-
lowing the homing system to acquire the target. As early as 1947, subsonic beam-
riding along a fixed beam was demonstrated, and in 1950 the first supersonic beam-
riding Talos was demonstrated.

Homing of aerospace vehicles. As previously defined, homing in-

volves guiding a vehicle to a specific target, as in the case of an interceptor. The
vehicle's motion is con rollgd with a homing system, which operates on signals
reaching it from th d get. The vehicle is equipped with a sensor which detects the
target in either a passive or a semiactive way, and with an autopilot which leads
 Nutation angle = 0.85'

Desired missile course is

along nutation axis

B~~~ center Viewed fromgehind radar

PRF 1

950

Dashed line is FM
C
t; .-0
c
D
3
u
-
.d
m

"-e 3E
:900
T -3.3d
.-
-91a
P
a2

850
0 90 180 270 360
Beam center position (degrees)
Sec. 6.4 Guldance Algorithm 323

the vehicle to the targct [Pelegrin, 1987(a)]. Homing guidance systems considered
in this section refer to those systcms that "zero in" on a targct while still guiding.
Homing systcn~sarc categorized according to the frequency band of the electro-
magnetic signals, as either radio or EO systerns. Radar systcms make up nearly all
systems operating at radio frequencies and operate on signals reflected o r radiated
by the targct. Generally, EO systems opcratc using TV, laser, or Ill techniques.
The problem of designing a homing system bccon~csless complicated for the case
in which the targct itself radiates elcctron~agncticenergy. It consists o f building a
receiver together w ~ t hthe appropriate computer subsystems. and then integrating
them into the pursuer, so that the required control functions arc carried out with
sufficient accuracy. If the targct must be illuminated in order to crcatc reflected
target signals, the homing system must also include a transmitter, which may be
placed on the ground. Auxiliary control systems are used to steer the pursuer and
are connected to the receiver-computer subsystem [Maksimov and Gorgonov,
19881.
The role o f guided missiles in warfare has grown steadily since World War
-11. Section 6.4.1 discusses the development of the inertial guidance systems that were
the prelude to the ability to accurately deliver long-range ballistic and other types
of missiles for which the target is a k n o ~ v nset of earth coordinates. These systems
were not meant to guide missiles against highly maneuvering targets, as this cannot
be accomplished without the ability to sense the target location in real time and to
respond to rapid changes. Using homing guidance, in which an onboard sensor
provides the target data on which the guidance is based, modern air defense missiles
possess such capability. Because of the manner in which the quality o f target in-
formation improves as intercept is approached, the level of accuracy that can be
achieved with homing guidance cannot be obtained by any other type o f missile
guidance [Fossier, 19841. As presented in Chapter 2, to track the target, the homing
guidance sensor in the seeker head reacts to reflected or radiated energy in one or
more of the following regions of the electromagnetic spectrum: microwave, MMW,
IR, visible, and ultraviolet. The type of information which a seeker head can provide
depends on the mounting of the sensor and the guidAnce energy used. Missiles
guiding on radiated electromagnetic energy from the target contain radar receivers
which detect this energy and use it to track the target. Thermal or heat homing
devices operate on the principle that IR radiation of a heated body possesses inten-

Figure 6-27 (a) The guidance beam for the beam-rider missile was conically scanned at 30
hertz with a clockwise rotation, as viewed from behind the radar antenna. The radar pulse
rate, nominally 900 pulses per second, was varied by ?50 pulses per second in synchronism
with the conical scan. (b) Signal modulations detkcted by the beam-riding receiver were pro-
cessed to determine missile position with respect to the guidance beam. Angular direction and
distance from the scan axis were determined by comparing the phase and amplitude ofthe 30-
hertz amplitude-modulated signal with the frequency-modulated reference signals. (c) The
beam-rider receiver detected and procedsed guidance beam signals to generate commands for
the missile control planes and the radar beacon responses. (0 1982 by Johns Hopkins APL
Technical Diyesr)
324 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

sities that are different from those o f its surroundings. These radiations are detected
by IR detectors and translated into voltage changes which, after amplification, are
Y
used for guidance. Light-seeking h o m i g systems contain photoelectric devices that
detect light reflected from the target, much like a T V picture. T h e perfortnancc of
homing missiles depends on the location of the transmitter o r primary source of
the guidance energy: inside the missile, on the target, o r elsewhere as a part of the
guidance system [Vricnds, 19871.
A passivc seeker detects electromagnetic or acoustic energy radiated by the
target, for example, a heat or IR-sensitive detector as used on the Sidewinder. An
active seeker employs its own transmitter in order to "illuminate" the target, as in
the case of AMRAAM. A semiactive seeker relies on the launching station for radar
illumination o f the targct, and then homes on the reflected signal, as in the case of
Sparrow. An advantage that results from having the tracker in the missile is that
the positional accuracy as the missile nears the target improves. Generally, the op-
posite occurs with command systems, and the problem can become particularly
acute in the case of long-range air defense systems where stnall angle tracking errors
result in large distance errors at long ranges. In the case of using missilcs with active
or passive seekers, autonomous guidance, or 110 guidance at all, the aircraft's au-
tomatic guidance ceascs the moment launch occurs. With command guidance (that
is, guiding the missile by radio, for example), or with scmiactivc missile seekers,
guidance of the aircraft docs not cease until the missilc reaches the targct or some
close proximity thcrcto. For command guidancc in particular, the trajectory along
which the aircraft flies must be such that it allows the aircraft both to sense thc
target and to communicate with the missile. With semiactivc tnissilc guidance, the
aircraft's trajectory must be such that the aircraft is ablc to illuminate the target. In
using scrniactivc radar missiles, the aircraft's trajectory is dctcrmincd by cnsuring
that the rnissilc is ablc to track thc targct rcliably [Maksimov and Gorgonov, 19881.
The three rr~odcso f l ~ o r t r i tin~ ~guidancc
~ are activc, scmiactivc, and passivc. Radar
homing systems in particular arc classified this way, depending on the location of
the primary source of the clcctromagnctic radiation. Each type is dctcrnlined by the
source of energy used for targct tracking, as illustrated in Figure 6-28. O f the three
modes of homing, activc homing is characterized by an autonomous terminal modc,
which increases firepower, and multidimensional multitargct tracking and resolu-
tion. Howcvcr, rangc is somewhat limited by power aperture product. and the
design can bc complcx and cxpcnsivc. With scmiactivc homing, thc high-power
i l l u n ~ i ~ ~ acxtcnds
tor rangc, but thcrc is 1i111itcd sysrcm fircpo\vcr (that is. Icss mu]-
titargct tracking capability than the activc homing) and the targct illu~ninatoris
exposed. Thc design is of modcratc complcsity. I'assivc h o ~ n i n g which , is thc third
mode of homing, rcquircs continuous targct visibility. It prcscrvcs 1lF (laser) ~ 1 1 1 i ~ -
sion control, and is of si~nplcto tnodcrate design cotnplcxity.

Active homing guidance. A hornins guidancc systcm that transn~its

crgy in the form of signals or waves to be reflected by a target and subscquclltl~
processed for guidancc is known as activc guidance. In activc guidance, the vehicle
Sec 6.4 Guidance Algorithm 325

M~ssileHoming On
Reflection From Target

Torget
I I I \
Launch ~ i i c r a f t Missile Homing On
Target Tracking And Reflection From Target
Illumination Radar
(B)

0
-=L-------
Missile Homing On Target
Radiation From Target
('3
Figure 6-28 Air-to-Air Homing Guidance (a) Active (b) Semiactive (c) Passive
(From [Hearton and Smoors, 19831 with prnnbsionjo~nG A C I A C )

requires both a transmitter and a receiver. The vehicle's own transmitter illuminates
the target, and guidance is based on the reflected electromagnetic energy. The term
active is applied to a device or system that generates or radiates energy. Active
homing of a vehicltconsists of transmitting energy waves such as radar from the
vehicle to the target and receiving the reflected energy to direct the vehicle toward
the target. With active systems, the guided weapon functions as a self-contained
guidance system by carrying on it the target illuminator/designator. In active radar
homing, the pursuer carries its own target-seeking radar with electromagnetic trans-
mitter which illuminates the target, and receiver which senses the reflected energy.
Figure 6-28a illustrates active radar homing guidance. The signal transmitted
by the radar in the missile is denoted by the solid arcs originating at the missile,
which also represent the beamwidth of the missile radar antenna. The arcs origi-
nating at the missile are drawn in broader fashion in Figure 6-28a than those rep-
resenting the beamwidth of the aircraft radar antenna drawn in Figure 6-28~. This
326 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

was done intentionally to highlight the fact that'the missile antenna in the confined
space of the missile will generally be smaller than the antenna used on the aircraft,
resulting in broader beamwidths. However, going to higher frequencies will result
in narrower beamwidths. Referring again to Figure 6-28a, the dashed arcs represent
the portion of reflected energy-which itself is actually reflected in all directions,_
that is reflected in the direction of the missile. T h e magnitude of the reflected signal
and its apparent source is a function of the aspect from which the target is viewed,
Viewing aspect constantly changes as a result o f the target's motion, and this is
responsible for amplitude variations or scintillation, and angular variations or glint
in the signal received by the missile. This signal is also referred to as target echo.
Problems with scintillation and glint exist witl, all radar systems including the sem-
iactive system to be discussed later. The received target echo is processed by the
missile radar, which then generates guidancc commands to the missile to bring about
intcrcept [Heaston and Smoots, 19831.
Active guidance is usually employed only in the final terminal phase of an
attack, with some other form of midcourse guidance acting to direct the missile to
the target's proximity. For example, when the missile is able autonomously to search
for and lock onto its targct after launch (LOAL), it is possible to cxtend the stand-
off range of the n~issilc.More and more interest is bcing focused on launch-and-
leave and fire-and-forget weapon delivery, resulting in a greater dcmand for active
guidance systems. The advantage of the active guidance system, illustrated in Figure
6-28a, is that the launch aircraft can maneuver as ncccssary im~ncdiatelyaftcr missile
launch is accomplished. This is especially true in the air defense or air superiority
role, where the target's valuc is judged to be o f high enough value to justify the
incrcased cxpcnsc and complexity. There is also intercst in utilizing active radar
guidancc in air-to-surfacc applications using M M W bccausc of thc ability to go to
narrow radar bcamwidths. Ho\vevcr, because large signals arc rcccivcd as a result
of reflections from surrounding objects including the ground, the problem of target
recognition and discrimination becomes morc difficult. Investigations are bcing con-
ducted in the area of developing electronic procedures for target recognition and
separation of target return from clutter return. An active radar seckcr that operates
with a coherent pulse waveform can provide range and range-rate information as
well as the LOS angular ratc. Active radar homing is being applied to air as well
as surfacc intcrcept and posscsscs an all-wcathcr and fire-and-forget capability. The
large spatial (rangc and anglc) and frcqucncy (rangc-ratc) resolution of M M W scckcrs
has cxtcndcd thc capabilitics of surfacc intcrccpt activc radar h o ~ n i n gfrom ship
targets to ground targets such as armored vehicles. Synthetic apcrturc radar-mapping
techniques arc uscd to update thc INS [Vricnds, 19871.

Semiactive (or semipassive) homing. In this tcchniquc, the designated

targct is tracked and illuminated by a radar or a lascr (or morc gcncrally, any con-
venient type of radiation). The illuminating transmitter is located on a different
platform, (for examplc, on the ground (scc Figure 6-4b) or in an aircraft (scc Figure
6-28b), and the rcccivcr is it1 the pursuer. The vehicle is equipped only with a sensor
See. 6.4 Guidance Algorithm 327

(receiver) tuned to the target-reflected, illuminating signal, and is automatically

piloted to reach the target. A semiactive missile is therefore dependent on the target
illuminator located in the launcher to detect the targct and to provide a reference
rear signal for it. As shown in Figure 6-4d, a high-power, continuous-wave ship-
board radar illuminator is one example ofan energy source. In Figure 6-4b, a ground
radar is illuminating the target and the reflected electromagnetic energy is used by
the vehicle for guidance. A semiactive missile must be guided by its launcher
throughout most of its flight until interception, thus restricting the launch flight
vehicle's maneuvers and heading in the case of an air-to-air missile system. The
radio-frequency (RF) energy emitted by the targct is passively homed by the missile
receiver to handle electronic countermeasures. ,
For a semiactive homing guidance with a radar seeker as illustrated in Figure
6-28b, the solid arcs in the figure originating at the launch aircraft signify the target-
illuminating radar signals. The signals, confined to a three-dimensional solid angle
by the radar antenna bandwidth, are also detected by an antenna located just behind
the missile to serve as a reference. The dashed arcs in the figure signify those signals
that are reflected back in the general direction of the missile and launch aircraft. In
reality, of course, signals will be reflected in every direction by the target. Reflected
signals are processed by the missile seeker so that the missile can be guided to
intercept the target. These same signals are also picked up by the radar in the launch
aircraft, which uses them to ensure that the illuminator is continually tracking or
pointed a t the target.
As the ability to guide either some or all of the flight by making use of target-
reflected energy, homing is one of the characteristics of both the SM-1 and SM-2.
Providing this energy is a high-power, continuous-wave, shipboard radar illumi-
nator, a fraction of the signal of which is received directly by the missile for use as
a Doppler-frequency reference. In Figure 6-4b, it is shown how this can be done.
Essentially, the illuminator antenna combines a narrow beam directed toward the
target with a broad reference beam that encompasses the missile all during its flight.
While the transmitter and receiver are linked, they are not collocated and, hence,
this type of guidance is termed semiactive. A semiactive missile needs also to be
able to home passively on electronic countermeasures signals radiated by the target.
The use of such signals ranges from screening the target-reflected signal to deceiving
the semiactive receiver. Should the target skin return be unidentifiable, o r if inco-
herent energy is present whose frequency and angle of arrival are approximately
correct, then home-on-jam processing is automatically selected [Witte and Mc-
Donald, 19811.

Semiactive Laser Homing. The shorter wavelengths in the millimeter

range and optical spectrum of these advanced systems mean a smaller beamwidth
of illumination. In fact, by eliniinating reflections from the surrounding area, it
became possible to illuminate an area smaller than the size of the target. Such ca-
pability was introduced by the laser and led to the development of air-to-surface
and surface-to-surface semiactive homing systems for use against tactical targets.
 Guidance Processing Chap. g

,---
/
/
Missile Homing On /
/

Reflection From Target

/
/
/
/
,.
,
/ -

-- -
%,'/// / .---

Figure 6-29 Semiactive Laser Guidance

(Air-to-Surface) (From [Heaxton arid
Smoots, 19831 with permissio~l from GA.
CIAC )

Owing to their large angle resolution and the ability to designate a specific target,
the laser-based systems started being referred to as designators, as opposed to the
term illuminator given to radar devices. They also brought about the term PGM
introduced in Book 1 of the series. The only drawback to the very small beamwidth
of these devices is that it makes them poorly suited for use against a maneuvering
target. Basically, they serve the same function as the radar illuminator but are used
in a slightly different manner. Typically, a human operator aims the laserloptical
device using an imaging system or some form of optical sight, which means that
these systems are used mainly against stationary or slowly moving targets at short
ranges. Using an operator to aim the designator is lower in cost than slaving the
same system to an automatic tracking system. For this reason, such systems have
found many guided-weapon applications including bombs, guided projectiles, and
guided missiles [Heaston and Smoots, 19831.
Weapons that us; semiactive laser seekers can be launched close to the laser
designator or from a remote site. When launched from a location close to the des-
ignator, the seeker may be locked on before launch. When launched from a remote
location, it must undergo a search and acquisition phase and lock-on after launch.
The use of multiple designators in a region containing several targets can be made
effective by coding the laser designator signals so that a particular missile only tracks
its intended target. One form of semiactive laser guidance consisting of a ground-
based laser designator and a remotely launched missile containing a laser seeker is
illustrated in Figure 6-29. A series of small arcs spanning the distance between the
designator and target indicates a very narrow designator beam. The designator is
aimed at the target by an operator using an optical sighting device. Owing to its
surface roughness, the target scatters the laser energy striking it in all directions, as
indicated by the series of dashed arcs originating at the target. The laser seeker
positioned at the nose of the incoming missile receives and processes the reflected
signal, and in turn provides guidance commands to guide the missile to impact with
Sec. 6.4 GufdanceAlgorithm 329

the target. Not yet a fanliliar acronym, scmiactivc laser homing (SALH) provides
pinpoint accuracy onto tanks and similar retlcctive targcts. The designator can be
aimed by a soldier or by the attacking aircraft [Gunston, 19791.
Pros and c o n s o f semiactive homing. In scmiactivc systems, a ground-
based illuminator is either a CW or pulsed Doppler radar which continually tracks
the targct and provides a phase reference for the seeker in the missile. Hccausc thc
broad bcamwidth of the tracking radar and illuminator results in only adequate
ability to distinguish targcts, semiactive systems using radar have bccn designed
specifically for use against air targcts. The missile-scckcr antenna bistatically tracks
the reflcctiotis frotn the targct using a narrowband filter, which accepts thc 1)oppler-
shifted targct signals, while rejecting direct signals from the illun~inatorand reflected
signals from radar clutter, which arc a t different Doppler frequencies [Schleher,
19861. The characteristic features of aircraft make them well suited for illumination
with practically no nearby clutter to intcrfcre with or diminish the capability of the
homing seeker. Although aircraft in formation can pose a difficulty, the terminal
homing receiver is still typically able to resolve and focus on a particular target as
the range decreases.
Succcssf~~l ernploymcnt of a semiactive system rcquires that the targct be il-
luminated for the entire duration of guided-missile flight. As a result, the illuminator
or designator is not available for use with another missile during this period of time,
and the missile firing rate is consequently reduced to one engagement a t a time.
This leads to the development of previously discussed active homing guidance sys-
tems in order to deal with the case of simultaneous multiple target engagements
[Heaston and Smoots, 19831. A high kill rate is possible only when the semiactive
radar homing system operates in a sampled-data mode using an electronically-scan-
ning phased array radar to track and illuminate several targets simultaneously. For
the final phase, requiring a high data rate, an autonomous guidance method can be
used (for example, active radar homing as mentioned earlier). This methodology
has been used in the AEGIS system for the STANDARD missile. The advantages
of command guidance can be added to the semiactive missile concept through the
TVM guidance technique. This technique has been used in the PATRIOT missile
system. Semiactive laser homing operating in the near-IR region (1.06 Fm wave-
length) is restricted to fair weather and short-range application (atmospheric atten-
uation) and to surface intercept (pulse repetition frequency limitation). In an air-to-
surface application with automatic laser target designation and tracking, the guidance
method offers a launch-and-leave capability to the aircraft which performs both
designation and weapon delivery. Semiactive radar homing which has an all-weather
capability, is restricted to air intercept and antiship applications because of ground
clutter. Against low-altitude air targets the ground clutter is separated from the
target returns using the Doppler principle. T o provide the missile with reference
frequency information, the missile is fitted with a rearward-looking antenna and
either continuous-wave or interrupted continuous-wave radar is used. For crossing
air targets and for ship targets, the pulse waveform is preferable [Vriends, 19871.
330 Guidance Processing Chap. g

Passive homing. In passive homing, the target must have a radiation

characteristic which isolates it from the other objects in the environment so that the
vehicle's sensor can be tuned to the radiation. For example, the IR spectrum emitted
by a tank on the battlefield can be used. Passive homing makes use of electromagnetic
energy emitted or radiated by the target to direct itself toward the target. The type
o f guidance where the missile homes on electromagnetic energy, heat, light, or
sound waves emitted from the target, or energy originating from natural sources
such as the sun that is reflected from the target without the missile itself having- to
radiate energy is usually referred to as passive guidance. Passive systems may employ
TV, or IR sensors. While active systems have greater control over target infor.
mation, passive systems are for the most part subject in their operation to the source
of target radiation. Passive guidance systems are grouped into the previously defined
category of fire-and-forget or launch-and-leave weapons because they do not ne-
cessitate further intervention from the launcher after they are locked on to the target.
Furthermore, they could conceivably be developed to the point of possessing au-
tonomous acquisition capability. Figure 6-28c illustrates the concept o f passive hom-
ing guidance, xvhcre radiation from the hot exhaust plume is picked up by an IR
seeker, which then processes this signal to furnish missile guidance. Possible guid-
ance energy is spread over the clcctromagnctic spectrum from microwave to ultra-
violet.
With ir$ared (IR) ~ ~ r i d a t j c an
e , IR tracker that senses IR radiation from the jet
engine of an aircraft provides one of the earliest examples of a passive guidance
system. Such a system is found in the Sidewinder missiles, which are still being
used. IR homing is attractive for any missile aimed at aircraft, though a MIG-25 in
full aftcrburner is a n~illiontimes easier than a small turboprop or helicopter. Modern
IR-homing missilcs can attack from any angle, even from dcad ahcad [Gunston,
19791. IR (hot-spot) guided \x7eapons contain a sccker which is able to track an IR
radiating source using only onc or a few detectors. Target discrimination is per-
formed cither by a suitable optical modulation (using a reticle in the focal plane) or
by scanning the total ficld of view with a small instantaneous field of view (image
scanning). Spcctral discrimination by sensing in diffcrent IR wavelength intervals
o r in an additional ultraviolet interval improves the target discrimination capability.
IR hot-spot guidancc has applications in short-rangc air interccpt (SAM and AAM),
using as IR sourccs the aircraft cxhaust pipe, the cxhaust plumc, and for high-speed
targcts thc acrodynamicallv heated leading edgcs [Vricnds, 19871.
Anothcr typc of guidance is known as i r ~ t c l l i ~ r rT~lrl / b ~ q q c Thc
. technology
uscd in these passive systems is that of TV, \vhcrc the system functions by capturing
the light rcflcctcd from thc targct. TV scckcrs havc bccn utilizcd in both command
guidancc and homing systcms. In the latter, thc opcrator sclccts thc target by PO-
sitioning a tracking gatc ovcr it on thc display. Thc tracking gatc consists of an
electronic circuit that crcatcs a cursor or indicator on a display scrccn. As soon as
the cursor is positioncd on a targct, thc tracking gatc auton~aticallytracks it and
gcneratcs information concerning its position rclativc to somc rcfcrcncc locatioll in
the sccnc, which is typically thc ccntcr of thc display. At this point, the TV seeker
Sec. 6.4 Guidance Algorithm 331

generates the appropriate signals that allow the autopilot to command the missile
to hit the target. Inasmuch as a T V seeker is rendered ineffective at night, current
effort is being spent to develop an analogous Ill imaging seeker [Heaston and
Smoots, 19831. Much of the current research on image processing is directed toward
the use of irrtelli.yrtri krrowlrd~qe-bajrdsysrrrtts ttclrrriqrres (presented in Book 4 of the
series) to identify the most vulncrablc part of the target. Given the right approach
to software, it has been possible to incorporate this capability on processors suitable
for small and even low-cost missiles [Barnes, 19871.
In radiort~~rer ilrrd i2.1~\.ICC'~q~riri~~rrce,
the type of seeker device is a mdiomcter,
which senses the low-level thermal radiation emitted from all objects. Such a device
may prove to be very usef~11for detecting and tracking particular targets. The small
dimensions of MMW equipment . . make application to submunitions and cannon-
- -

launched projectiles possible. Autonomous target acquisition occurs in an active

mode, whereas close to the target a passive or radiometric mode takes over to prevent
large miss distance caused by the glint phenomenon [Vriends, 19871.
Electro-optical (EO) prided ~veaporrsarc equipped with an imaging seeker that
operates in the visual region (TV and low-light level TV), in the middle IR at-
mospheric transmission window (3-3 km), or in the far IR atmospheric window
(8-13 km). The imaging IR or thermal-imaging seekers react on the temperature-
dependent IR radiation of the target and its background. They have a day-night
capability and offer a better performance in poor weather and battlefield (dust and
smoke) conditions than T V seekers and sensitivity and resolution in fair weather
are better than for M M W radiometric seekers. The target-tracking capability de-
pends on the target signature and the logic used for automatic tracking, for example,
contrast edge,
- contrast centroid, and area correlator tracking. EO weapons which
are locked onto the target before launch have a fire-and-forget capability. The stand-
off range of weapon delivery can be improved with a video data link allowing lock-
on after launch and target monitoring [Vriends, 19871.
With antiradiation homing (ARH), antiradiation missiles (ARM) for use against
communication and radar emitters carry one or more internal or external antennas
which provide directional information on target location over a large signal band-
width [Vriends, 19871. ARM home on the microwave energy transmitted by target
radars and are passive in operation. Their receivers, however, differ from the true
-

passive systems which typically depend on thermal radiation or reflected light, and
are actually more akin to the receivers used in the systems that are to be described
next. Examples of ARM projectiles that have been developed andlor studied include
the SHRIKE, HARM, and Antiradiation Projectile (ARP). A similar method is used
when a radar-guided missile operates in a HOJ mode.

Example 6-12: CHAPARRAL guidance. The CHAPARRAL missile

(see Figure 6-30a) is a supersonic, surface-to-air, passive IR homing missile. The
missile system is composed of a guidance section, fuse, warhead, rocket motor,
fixed wings, and movable canard fins. The airframe is an in-line cruciform con-
figuration with two pairs of fixed wings aft and two pairs of movable control fins
 WINOS (41

WARHEAD
7

SECTION ROCKET MOTOR

r ----------------
(A)
TARGET
POSITION SIGNAL I
PROPORTIONAL
TO SIGHTLINE

b ENABLEMCNT
GEOMETRY

(
- TRACKING LOOP

GUIDANCE SECTION
RESTORING
MOMENTS I
HARDWARE
I
L----------,,- ---J
MISSILE LATERAL FIN
ACCCLCRATION
' DEF ECTION
)ONEMATICS 4 1 AERODYNAMICS i

(B)

Figure 6-30 (a) CHAPARRAL MIM-72C Missile (b) CHAPARIIAL Guidance

(c) ROSETTE Flying-Spot-Scan (From /I+'aire, 1983) u-irh pentzirsiotl from S C S )
Sec. 6.4 Guidance Algorithm 333

forward. The guidance ~ t t i i t ,which is mounted on the forward end of the missile,
consists of a scckcr section, a solid-state electronics section, and a fin-servo section.
The current guidance unit hardware uses Ill conical-scan optics to provide PNG.
The basic operation of the CHAl'AI<IlAL missile guidance loop is illustrated in
Figure 6-30b. Froni 1981 to 1982, the CHAPARI<AL missile guidancc unit was
reconfigured to contain a rosette pattern, flying-spot-scan IR seeker and a micro-
processor-based image processor by adding components to the inertially stabilized
free gyro of the scckcr. as illustrated by Figure 6-30c [Waite. 19831.
Talos: A direct-guidance application. The Talos beam-rider mid-
course guidancc system is discusscd extensively in Exan~ple6-1 1 . This section gives
a detailed treatment, based on the excellent work of Gulick et al. [1982], of the
Talos homing guidance system.
Terminal guidance. From the time the Talos development program was
first initiated, it was envisioned that there would be a terminal-guidance phase fol-
lowing the midcourse beam-riding phase. A homing system would have to be de-
veloped that would satisfy constraints imposed by the ramjet diffuser and that would
rapidly acquire the targct without the need for accuratc missile-to-target LOS
positioning information. Achieving a capability of intercepting small targets at dis-
tances up to 100 nautical miles meant that high receiver sensitivity in addition to
good targct resolution was mandatory. Some factors that influenced the selection
of the interferometer homing system for terminal guidance were the following: (1)
ramjet inlet constraints were satisfied by the widely spaced body-fixed antennas; (2)
the body-fixed antennas were less complicated than a gimbal dish antenna; (3) mis-
sile-to-target angle data were not required for rapid target acquisition; and (4) there
was a desire to have the largest possible aperture and, hence, the most accurate
measurement of the LOS angular rate. Figure 6-31a illustrates the basic principle
of the interferometer system, where the nomenclature was first introduced in Figure
2-10. The composite antenna pattern of two widely spaced antenna elements of an
interferometer is made up of a series of peaks and nulls, which are moved by a phase
shifter. This results in amplitude modulation of the target signal. An output is
generated by a discriminator tuned to this modulation frequency that is proportional
to the angular rate of the target LOS. A P N G homing trajectory to the target is
executed if the target LOS rate with respect to an inertial reference is kept at zero.
It remains only to control the missile turning rate so as to maintain a zero LOS rate
and guarantee an intercept.
The first Talos homing system. The first Talos homing system was
based on a guidance concept consisting of body-fixed, widely spaced antennas to
be used as a radar interferometer. It employed an independent interferometer channel
for each wing-control plane. As shown in Figure 6-31b, the receiver used a scanning
interferometer system. Target signals at the antenna were

X I = A, sin wt, X2 = A2 sin(ot + +) = A2 sin

 (1sad:ta /v>!ny?a~.7dv s u ! q d o ~suyo(Kq 2861 0) .D01 leuo!~~od
-old ,vu4!s r 11, pallnsa~~ I I P)(10h\13Il ~ol13ede3-1o1s~sa~ e i(q pa~e!~ua~aa!p sem i a ~ a m o : ~ u a ~ o d
all] 1llOlJ l ~ r d l ~ ra111
o - l a ~ . ~ r t r o ! ~ c ~e. ~JO~ oudu r JI(I o1 p a l d n o ~oslc sem IJeqs 1erl.L (ON -
1 0 u!s) ( y j p s ~ 01
) papuodsal~o31cg1 a(S11e ue lc IJeqs lar\[osal aql pauo!~!sod oA1aS 8u!mol[o3
-aseqd y .lole~auaZ23UJl2JilaJ aqlJo aseqd aql g!qs 01 pasn seM (mlo~leldaiqe~s)o1A2 aal3 e 01
p a l d n o ~Alle~!ueq3am J ~ A ~ ~ S ~ J - ~ y I ~ .Iaurleq>
~ U A S I O J I U O ~alZu!s e S M O ~ Sa ~ n Z ga q l w d l n o
J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ J J ~ I u ! - ~aql u !m I o
I lI jI uo!~om
~ ~ s Lpoq Su!ldno~ap 103 poqlam aspald alom e sem
S ~ . J ~ V L(3) S .+I 01 [euo!]~odo~dleuZ!s e sem ~oleu!lu!.13s!p aql urn13 lndlno a q l ' 7 0 so330
zlrmpsa IIE S E M N m1a1 aqL .sleuZ!s l a ~ a m o l a ~ l a aql ~ u !uo uo!lom A p o q ~ o aql aldno3ap 01
pasn srm cr~A4ale1 palnnor~~-.(poq e t u o l ~l n d l n ~-aueld [on1109 [euo%nq)~o aq] 103 pasn sem
III.>IS.~S lr.>~lu.>p! I I V ..>IIPI,~ 10111111.1 .11311!5 e JOJ SI!M .1.1.>11 IIMOIIS III.>ISAS ~11.1,. J ~ I ~ I I I O J ? ) J ~ I I I !
3111uue~s r pas11 ((0~61) r u o q "13 2 1 1 (q)
~ . > ~ ! ~ . > a ~ S t ~ !soleL W I I-9 a~n%!a
~ J ~ I ~ C I I O I ~ J J (c)
336 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

where o is the microwave frequency and 6 is the electrical phase difference at the
antennas. A , and A2 denote the amplitudes, which could be different. The phase of
X2 is advanced by an amount @(t) by the scanning phase shifter according to
@(t) = o,t + (P where o,is the scan frequency and (P is the initial phase shift. X,
can then be expressed as

nd .
X3 = A2 sin o + o, + 2 -
A
uL cos UL

Adding XI to X3 gives X4, which can be expressed as

7 ~ d.
X4 = A1 sin wt + A2 sin o + o, + 2 -A
UL cos UL

This last result shows that X4 is a carrier signal at w and is amplitude modulated a t
nd .
o, + 2 - UL cos U'.

Although the carrier frcquency was changed by the heterodyne process in the re-
ceiver from microwave to a lower frequency, this did not alter the basic u L infor-
mation since the nlodulation was unaffected. Moreover, since thc desired infor-
mation was the frequency ofthe n~odulation.the nleasurcment ofuL was not directly
affected by changes in the amplitude of the signal. A body-mounted rate gyroscope
was used to decouple body motion to provide the LOS rate measurement u,and
the gyro output frequcncy modulated an osc~llatorto produce a carrier frequency
wo with a deviation proport~onalto the missile-body turning rate 0. Because a fixed
value of K,xvhose term in the gyro channel is an esti~natcof cos DL, for all flight
conditions turned out not to be satisfactory. Talos relied on a sclcction of two values
based on thc crossing component of the target speed. This value was sct into the
missile at laut~chtime. The scanning ~ h a s shiftcr
e frcquency o,\vas eliminated fro111
the final term by the use of double modulation, which allowcd a frcquency dis-
criminator tuned to w,, to providc an output that was proportional to (2ndlA)
( ~ -8bL cos uL). Ignoring biases, the discriminator output was a good approx-
imation proportional to the dcsircd u.
Stable platform phase follow-up system (STAPFUS). The first T a l a
homing system suffcrcd from t\tro critical problcms, the first of xt~hichwas that a
bias resulted from anv oifsct bct\vccn the voltarc-controlled oscillator and the dis-
c,

criminator center frcqucncy. The second major problem was that it \tias difficult to
maintain a stablc gyro gain factor equal to (2ndlA)h!. The solution to both of these
problems came in the way of thc stablc platform phase follow-up system (STA1'-
FUS). Figurc 6-31c shows the scannit~gintcrfcromctcr using STAI'FUS. AS writh
thc initial systcnl, a motor \vai used to drive the phase shiftcr and a rcfcrcncc
crator. I'hasc corrections for nlissilc body motion were llladc by a singlc-dcgrcc-
of-frccdotn frcc gyro coupled to a synchro-resolver. The gear ratio bctwccl1 the
gyro and rcsolvcr providcd a constant gain factor for thc gyro coupling. The dif-
 Guidance Processfng Chap. 6

Range

(A)
Figure 6-32 (a) Pulse radar signals from a moving target can be obscured by large,
stationary reflecting surfaces such as the sea or land masses. (b) Continuous wave
(CW) radar signals from a moving target can be detected by filtering at the Doppler
frequency. (c) The rear reference receiver used a phase-locked klystron and a ground-
aided acquisition (GAA) loop. The klystron frequency was coarsely corrected by
the discriminator to the frequency of the illuniinator signal, followed by exact fre-
quency control by the phase-locked loop. The voltage-controlled oscillator fre-
quency was offset from the intermediate frequency by the j ~ a . 4loop and caused the
klystron frequency to be offset precisely for the target signal entering the front
receiver (see Fig. d). (d) A target signal having a Doppler frequency equal to.f~fcs.<
would pass through the amplifiers and narrow-bandpass quartz crystal filters and
be detected by the acquisition circuit. Upon detection, the discriminator output
readjusted the frequency of the voltage-controlled oscillator to keep the target signal
in the center of the receiver bandpass. The narrow-bandpass filters removed the
land and sea clutter signals entering the antennas. (e) The monopulse seeker was a
refinement of the original C W seeker. The target andlor jammer signals were pro-
cessed through a two-channel receiver (per guidance plane). Narrowbanding oc-
curred alniost immediately following the microwave mixers. The intermediate fre-
quency (IF) amplifiers \r.ere hard limited on receiver noise. The Doppler tracking
loop was closed through the n ~ i c r o \ ~ a vlocal
e oscillator and the first mixer. Predicted
Doppler inforniation provided by the ship was used to aid target search. The home-
on-jamming niode eniployed the same narrow bandwidth and angle processing
circuits used for tracking the target echo. (0Guidance-control logic used to ilnple-
ment guidance switchover from midcourse to homing, to gate the steering infor-
mation once homing began, and to control Doppler-search routines was based on
the coherency of the angle data. The signal used for that was obtained from a phase
detector that monitored the STAPFUS phase-tracking loop. (g) Multiple jammer
flight tests were conductcd to demonstrate dichotomous angle-tracking capabilities
inherent in the Talos interferometer guidance system. Briefly, if signals froin tiiul-
tiple sources were present siniultaneously, the n~issilewould track one of them if a
power differential of 2 decihcls or greater cxistrd within the narrow bandwidth of
the receiver. In practice. the niissile ufouldnearly always intercept one ofthe targets.
For thc riiultiplejanin~ertest illustrated here, the primary target was a P-4Y aircraft
with a rioise jammer. After achieving a near miss on the aircraft, the missile suc-
cessfully intercepted the westernmost jammer on the ground. (h) The effect of self-
protection electronic counternieasures (ECM) o t ~riiiss distance is illustrated. The
curves were derived from miss distance data obtained froni laboratory ECM tests
conductcd a t the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. Corona. Calif.. froni the monopulse
flight tests against jamming targets, and froni historic test data of Talos flight tests
against nonjamming targets. Note that the pcrforniancc against the janiming targets
was superior t o that against the tionjamming targcts. (0 1982 b y Joh~tsHirl>kittrAPL
Techni(a1 Digc~.sr)
 - Target tracking loop 7To STAPFUS measurement system

Bandwidth = 1600 Hz
>

F i wnptifii with
Target 2.5 MHz_
Mixer namM
VJ* crystal filter
-C
fihu
Interferometer
antenna system 2 3 MHz

-Rear
antenna
F
ig 10
-
Figure 6-32 (Continued)
64 Guidance Algorithm

-
- T a m reaiver
Doppler rcquirition m d mek
-Reference receiver
-Predicted Dopplw (GA.4)

Rear 1 !
antenna

-TO autopilot

pier search control

Switchover.
midcourse
to
homing

(F)
Figure 6-32 (Continued)
 Guidance Processing

0.4
-
V"#K&& Laboratov ECM tests
Flight tests (monopulre) with ECM.

-- 9 tests. 6 direct hits

Flight tests without ECM
(Tala history)
0.2

0.1
Miss distance

(H)
Figure 6-32 (Continued)
6.4 Guidance Algorithm 343

Figure 6-33c shows a block diagram of the phase-locked klystron loop and
the ground-aided acquisition loop. Just before launch, the klystron was electrically
pretuned to the approximate frequency of the illuminator. Approximately 15 sec
prior to intercept, the ship-based CW illuminator began radiating, and automatic
frequency control pull-in occurred. Using radar data, the target Doppler frequency,
fD, was computed and then transmitted to the missile by a 400-kHz plus fD frequency
modulation on thc illuminator frequency. The ground-aided acquisition loop used
this estimate of the Doppler to establish the initial frequency for the voltage-con-
trolled oscillator. By doing this, the klystron frequency was not very far off from
the correct value, and the search required to acquire the target was minimal. The
front receiver with its narrowband quartz-crystal filters and discriminators, together
with the Doppler-tracking loop, is shown in Figure 6-32d. The function of the loop
was to control the voltage-controlled oscillator and, therefore, the klystron so as
to keep the target signal in the center of the receiver's narrow bandpass. The SAM-
N-6cl missile with its CW homing receiver was well suited to a countermeasures
environment. First, the narrowband characteristics of the seeker and the short (6-
10 sec) homing time made for limited exposure to hostile environments. Second,
the high-speed phase-tracking loop in STAPFUS provided a nominal angle-tracking
sensitivity (volts per deg per sec) when it was tracking, independent of the SIN.
Finally, the Talos phase-interferometer angle processing was intrinsically capable
of resolving signals from two or more separate sources such as multiple noise jam-
mers if there was a small power difference ( 5 2 dB) between them. There was,
however, some uncertainty as to whether the CW guidance system would perform
well against surface targets. In this application, the target signal and the sea clutter
signals do not have a useful Doppler frequency separation. However, 'the combi-
nation of the 800-Hz and 100-Hz filter bandwidths maintained a signal-to-clutter
ratio suitable for guidance, and the Talos system with CW interferometer guidance
performed well against surface ships and boats.

Monopulse Homing System. The performance of the original SAM-N-6cl

missile was exceptionally good against several types of jamming. Unfortunately,
the missile was limited in its capabilities against certain types of deception coun-
termeasures owing to its RF sequential lobing (scanning) angle processing, its slow
automatic gain control and its time-consuming Doppler search routines. One of the
foremost objectives of the rnonopulse seeker design was to enable the missile to
win any o~e-on-oneencounter with an aircraft, regardless of the form of AM andlor
FM noise or deception jamming the latter might employ. The result of this effort
was the development by the mid-1960s of a seeker that was virtually unjammable
by an attacking aircraft. One requirement for the Talos rnonopulse seeker was that
it be compatible with the existing STAPFUS, which, as described previously, re-
quired a scan reference (w,) and a scan (w, + (2adlA)sin uL)signal. As shown in
Figure 6-32e, the Talos monopulse receiver was designed to provide these two
signals. The receiver is somewhat similar to the scanning receiver, with the exception
that a pseudo-scan was introduced at IF following narrowband filtering, which
344 Guidance Processing Chap. g

involved offsetting the frequencies of the second IF amplifiers by an amount equal

t o the pseudo-scan. By choosing the scan reference to be greater than the bandwidth
o f the narrowband input filters, it was made certain that the pseudo-scan would be
invulnerable to ECM.
A deficiency of the Doppler search routines in the original C W seeker was
that target reacquisition was slow or in some cases could be prevented altogether.
T w o factors that played a significant role in this deficiency were the relatively slow
sweep-repetition rate and the complete reliance on memory for positioning the
sweep. The design of the original search patterns was based on providing a high
first-look acquisition probability under minimum signal-level conditions. This im-
posed a limitation on the maximum search speed that opposed the ECM requirement
for fast reacquisition. The reason for this last requirement is that a jammer can cause
the seeker to lose acquisition repeatedly throughout the homing phase. For the
monopulse seeker, a compromise was pursued in which the sweep speed was in-
creased such that the single-look probability for the small signal case was lower than
previous but, after 1 or 2 sec, was comparable as a consequence of the increased
number of looks. Late in the homing phase, the probability of single-look acquisition
would be essentially unity because of the relatively high target signal-to-noise ratio
and, consequently, the desired fast reacquisition was achicved. Also, taking advan-
tage of the predicted Doppler information provided by the ship during the homing
phase helped solve the problem of positioning the Doppler search center. The control
of critical guidance functions was based on the coherency of the angle data, which
made it possible to resolve a s~gnalemanating from essentially a point source forward
of the missile (targct skin ccho or a jammer) from other signals such as sea clutter,
scattered chaff, reccivcr noise, and so on. An HOJ served to delay guidance switch-
over from midcoursc to homing in cases where acquisition of the targct ccho was
not achieved immcdiatcly. This averted immediate HOJ on a stand-off jammer.
Figurc 6-33f sholvs the guidance control logic.

Tests of Continuous-Wave and Monopulse Homing System. The results of

cxtcnsivc laboratory tcsting of the CW and monopulse homing systcms strongly
indicated that the Talos missilc with the tnonopulsc sccker could not be bcatcn by
virtually any sclf-protcction noise or dcccption jammer. Twenty-fivc of the 26 valid
flight tcsts of thc Unificd Missile wcrc SUCCCSS~UI. Ninc of thcsc 25 were with the
~nonopulscscckcrs aqainst
-. a wide sclcction of ECM typcs and paramctcrs. Two of
the successful tcsts \trcrc against multiplc jammers, one of \vhich is shown in F i ~ u r c
6-32s. Talos' pcrforn~anccagainst both jamming and nonjalnming targcts is illus-
trated in Figurc 0-32h, in which it can bc sccn that Talos pcrformcd bcttcr against
jamlning targcts. This is not altogether surprising \vhcn onc considers that a jam111cr
generally provides point-sourcc cnhanccmcnt of the targct. 111 othcr words, the
janlmcr is literally providing a beacon on u~hichthc missilc can homc.

Dec~elopmentof Antiradiation Hotninx ( A R H ) Missile Guidance. As dis-

C U S S C ~in Gulick ct al. 11982], it wras not long aftcr the Victnatn conflict brokc out
that thc nccd for an cficctivc long-rangc nntiradiation missilc (AIIM) to suppress
Sec. 6.4 Guidance Algorithm 345

enemy radars became evident. Because of its long-range capabilities and the ease
with which it could be adoptcd for new missions, Talos was seen as both a logical
and dcsirablc choicc for radar supprcssion. The Talos ARM program rcquired the
development of a unique operational concept because the ship could not conceivably
track the targct and implement missile guidance as it did for the cngagcment of air
targets. The techniques for providing ARM with the appropriatc targct information
cot~sistingof !geographic location and RF emission characteristics (ircqucncy, pulse-
rcpctition frecluency, and so on) were as follows. First, several navigational tech-
niqucs, including the Navy Navigation Satcllitc System, were used to establish ship
coordinates. The ship then directed the missilc to thc vicinity of the targct using
the beam-rider midcourse guidance. Upon approaching the targct, the missile was
put into a dive and the homing system was activated. The missile approached the
targct in one of two possible terminal geometries, either an approximate 45-deg
dive or a near-vertical dive. Because the low pulse-repetition frequency of some
target radars was not compatible with the scan frequency used by the carlicr sem-
iactivc scckcrs, it was required foremost of the ARM homing system that it be
monopulse. It was also desired to have a system with a high sensitivity so as to
provide continuous guidance on the low sidelobc levels from thc targct. Finally,
thc ARM guidance system had to be compatible with the existing Talos airframe.
Figure 6-33a shows a simplified block diagram of the ARM seeker. The receiver
used two parallel IF amplifiers (per guidance plane) with subsequent in-phase and
quadrature processing. By using limiting amplifiers, a very large instantaneous dy-
namic range greater than 120 dB was achieved. Circuits were carefully designed so
as to maintain the differential phase shift between these amplifiers at a low level,
and good phase tracking was made possible with input peak power levels greater
than 10 watts.
For very low-frequency targets (L band), it was considered undesirable to have
a guidance error associated with even 10 electrical degrees differential phase shift
between the receiver channels. By adding microwave and IF transfer switches that,
on a pulse-to-pulse basis, allowed radar pulses to be processed alternately through
one channel and then the other. the error was all but eliminated. With these switches.
the internally generated errors would average zero. Figure 6-33b shows the mea-
sured angle error arising from differential phase shift plotted against the signal power
level. The two curves in the figure show the errors with and without the transfer
switches operating. The acquisition and discrimination channel was placed in parallel
with the angle channels, and the receiver was self-gating. A signal that met the
radiation and pulse repetition frequency requirements designated at launch would
provide a gate to the angle channel. The seeker could discriminate between two
signals as long as these differed in their operating frequencies by at least 3 MHz. In
order to minimize the effects of multipath reflections near the target, leading-edge
gating was used. The outputs from the angle phase-comparator were multiplied by
a 400-Hz signal to provide an amplitude-modulated signal to drive the STAPFUS
resolvers. The seeker measuring the LOS rate to the target at the time of acquisition
provided geometric discrimination. The ship, utilizing the midcourse beam-riding
guidance, caused the missile to dive toward a point approximately four miles beyond
 Guidance Processing Ckp. 6

-Guidance signals
-Gating and switching
-Frequency control

B channel guidance plane

.., ~ .

T
I ating
ignal 400 Hz

Target reject from

I angle rate renror

-", 0.8 I I I I I I I I I
Transfer switches out
u
'0 ---Transfer switches in
f 0.4 -

-1 5 -25 -35 -45 -55 -65

Input Power (decibel meters)
(B)

Figure 6-33 Talos A l l H Missile Guidance (a) T h e Talos Antiradiation Missile (AIIM) seeker
used t w o parallel IF amplifiers per guidance plane with subsequent in-phase and quadrature
processing. A signal that satisfied the prelaunch frequency and pulse repctitiot~frequency re-
quirements provided the gating signal to the angle channel. (h) Angle bias resulting from
diffcrential phase shift bct\vcen the recciver channcls was virtually eliminated with the use of
radio frequcncy and of IF transfer switches that operated on a pulse-to-pulse basis. 1C 1982
by Jokns Hopkit~sAPL T r ( h ~ i i ( aDixcst)
l
 Sec. 6.5 Guidance Law 347

the intended target. The resulting missile-to-target LOS rate was in the down di-
rection. In the cvent of a failure to detect that downward angular rate during the
target acquisition process, the signal was rejected and the seeker continued to search
for another target. If the target was accepted, the missile executed a down maneuver
to the target. In this way, the elevation angle at which the missilc would intercept
the target was nearly 90 deg.
According to Gartcn and Dean 119821, although specific details of Vietnam
combat applications cannot be released, the radiation-seeking capability of the Talos
ARM (RGM-8H) was demonstrated by the fact that shore batterics were silenced
by missiles fired from ships placed in the Gulf of Tonkin. Because of its target
discrimination capabilities, Talos was also able to effect long-range kills of MIG
aircraft over land. The long-range intercept capacity put enemy air tactics in check
whenever a Talos ship was nearby. The opportunity to use the surface-to-surface
capability never presented itself.

6.5 GUIDANCE LAW

In order to intercept the target, a missile must constantly travel in the proper di-
rection. The direction in which a missile travels is dictated by an algorithm built
into the guidance processor known as the guidance law. Many different guidance
laws have been developed over the years, and with the advent of highly maneu-
verable airborne targets, research on improved guidance laws is continuing [Heaston
and Smoots, 19831. Guidance laws currently in use on existing and fielded missiles
may be inadequate in the battlefield environments envisioned for the 1990s and
beyond. Performance criteria will probably require applications of newly developing
theories. which in turn will necessitate a large
" comvutation capabilitv relative to
classical guidance technology. Until very recently this task has been relegated to
large computers, in many cases ground based. However, advances in microproc-
essors will allow increased use of onboard computation [Fraser, 19811. Geometry
and other parameters for homing guidance are drawn in Figure 2-10. Currently,
several guidance laws of the two-point (target and missile) or three-point (target,
missile, and station) type are implemented in homing missiles. As shown in Figure
6-1, current guidance laws, whether of the two-point or three-point type, can be
classified as LOS guidance (Section 6.5.1), LOS rate guidance (Section 6.5.2), or
advanced guidance (Chapter 8). It must be pointed out that a guidance law design,
to be made complete, requires guidance filter techniques such as those presented in
Chapter 7. Also, sensitivity analysis and a comparison of these guidance laws will
be presented in Section 6.5.3 and in Chapter 8. Figure 2-10 shows the basic ge-
ometry. In command guidance, the target and missile dynamics are separated because
the radar tracks them separately. The command guidance geometry is described in
Figure 6-23c for the head-on case while the semiactive homing using the standard
PNG is described in Figure 2-10. The dynamics are linearized about the LOS vector
at the start of the terminal portion of guidance.
348 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

6.5.1 LOS Angle Guidance

The guidance law definition used by Locke [I9551 is followed here and depicted in
Figure 6-34. The LOS guidance (either CLOS or beam-rider system) in this figure
is designated as a three-point guidance system. As shown in Figure 6-23a, a beam-
riding missile generates its own commands internally whereas a CLOS missile re,
ceives its commands from a remote station. These two schemes, however, have
essentially the same lateral acceleration command mechanism. From Figure 2-10,

= - vmsin ~ l ~ < d / R , or sin ul,,d ;= - R,uIV, (6-5 b)

Differentiating Equation (6-5b) gives

Since A, = Vm(6 - ul,,d),using Equations (6-5a), (6-Sb), and (6-5c) A, becomes

A, = 2bVm + R,ulcos ulecrd+ Vmtan UI,,~ (6-5d)
which represents the lateral acceleration required by the missile to stay on the LOS.
Combining Equations (6-ja), (6-5b), and (6-5d) yields the kinematic transfer func-
tion

where 0, replaces u to emphasize that this is the angle subtended by the missile (see
Figure 6-23b) [East, 19841. The LOS guidance loop which is a two-integrator system
becomes unstable under small perturbations. A stabilizing compensator is thus re-
quired [Durieux, 1984; East, 19841

A LOS guidance loop is shown in Figure 6-35a. The loop gain is maintained constant
by incorporating the missile range R, in the feedback loop. This in turn ensures a
sufficient loop bandwidth. The beam stiffness K, is adjusted to trade-off the tracking
response and stability against sensor noises. Finally, the filter G(s)in Figure 6-3%
is used to provide cnough phasc stability. The inverse kinematics in a feedforward
fashion (Figure 6-35a) arc includcd to allcviatc the need of high loop bandwidth
One example implc~ncntationbased on Equation (6-5d) was donc in Equation (6-
l b ) whcrc 0r replaces u.

6.5.2 LOS Rate Guidance

The homing guidancc systcm, which contrasts with the LOS guidance, is designated
as a two-point guidancc system and is implemented mostly as LOS rate guidance.
Sec. 6.5 GufdanceLaw

Figure 6-34 Guidance Law Types (Froin /Goodirein, 1972(b)/ wirh p e n n i s i i o ~ ~ j r o ~ n

AGARD)

Figure 6-35b depicts a conventional LOS rate guidance loop for both command
and homing systems [Alpert, 1988; Durieux, 19841. For easy comparison, the LOS
rate guidance in this figure is arranged correspondingly to the LOS guidance in
Figure
. 6-35a. In other words, a derivative network is cast in the guidance computer.
Since there is only one pole at the origin, the loop stability is not likely to be a
problem as in the case of the LOS guidance, at least until near interception when
l / ( V c t g*
) 30. The trade-off between tracking performance and high frequency sta-
bility is thus alleviated. However, it is still highly desirable to keep the LOS rate
guidance loop bandwidth as small as possible [East, 19841. If K, = A t k = A/
,,t ki = 0, then the LOS guidance in Figure 6-35a is identical to the command
guidance using a synthetic PNG in Figure 6-33b(i). These gains are not sufficient
to keep the missile within the tracker beam when t, is large. Similar to dynamic
lead guidance to be presented later, it is thus necessary to reserve the synthetic P N G
(see Figure 6-35b(i)) for the intercept phase and to use LOS guidance during the
initial phase [Durieux, 19841.
LOS rate guidance is defined by

where y, is the commanded flight path angle, h is the navigation gain, and C is the
constant or initial flight path angle yo. The guidance information is illustrated in
Figure 6-36a. As shown in the figure, a body-fixed or strapdown seeker senses the
look angle, UL; a gimballed, inertially stabilized seeker senses the LOS rate, u;and
an airstream stabilized seeker senses the lead angle, ale,&Radar seekers can be used
to sense range and range rate (closing velocity), as long as there is amitable wave-
form and reference signal information. Other information, such as that dealing with
missile airframe motion, may be required to implement a guidance law. There are
 ,--------------
I
Guidance Computer 1I

I Range Stiffness I
L Estimate
-------------A
em r--------1

I Kinematics I
L--------J

(A)
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
I Guidance Computer I
I I
Derivative
-
Network
G(s) s

Qr = el.f\T - Om -t = Y (Approximate for Figure (A))

8 = R e c o n s r m c t e ~ v e dLQS Angle
For Synthetic PNG, K, = M, = u, = A V, 8
(i) Command Guidance
r---_-___- 1 ----
! Guidance Computer I

a = Geomebical LaSAngle
For Standard PNG, Kg= &'$ = u, = A V, b Independent of R

(ii) Homing Guidance

Airframe
Dvnamics

-8. - -
or q,,, I 0-7 Target
Motion
'Feedback with Body Pitch Angle 8: Anirude Pursuit
"Feedback with Flight Path Angle y: Velocily Pursuit
(C)
Figure 6-35 (a) LOS Guidance (b) Conventional LOS Ratc Guidance (c) Pursuit Guidance
( ( a ) from [East, 19841 with permission from ACARD; ( b ) from [Durieux, 19841 with permissiotl
from ACARD)
 Sec. 6.5 Guidance Law

(iuidancx: Law With l'erfect Response Guidance Equation

Lateral h l e r a t i o n Command
U, = Vm f c

C:ummond to 1- (hidance I(g G(s)lR, 1

(&.am R i k r o r CUX) r =O ft off the beam
1 Atlitude Pursuit look angle oL = 0, u = 0, A = 1. C = 0 $'"= $(u-8)
Vclwily Pursuit lead angle u = 0, o = y. k = 1. C = O $ole,,= s ( o - Y )
Ckvialed Pursuit = preset v n l u olCs4
lead angle olead - ole.4)
('onslant b a r i n g o = cro = constant. A = q C = 0 Kg ( t -~ u,)
Proportional Navigation
tiiicbnce (PW,) ;= 0, = A h A = constant V, cos yo A ;o r A V, &

C o ~ ~ s rPNG
al A=O A V, & 1cos uL
Extended PNG &=O AV,~Icoso,,-V,tanoL
Velocity Compensated PNG
(vcpffi) &=o A V, & - i~,,,
s i n atead

Figure 6-36 (a) Geometry and Parameters for Homing Missile (b) Basic Homing Guidance
Law ( ( a ) reprinted w i t h p e r m i s s i o n ~ o m(Vriends, Systems ?t Control Encyclopedia), Copyright /1987),
Pergamon Press PLC)

several useful guidances which are popularly used in missile-guidance systems, as

shown in Figure 6-36b. Many guidance laws currently implemented in homing
missiles are of the two-point (target and missile) type, and these can be based on
pursuit, proportional navigation, or both [Vriends, 19871.
Pursuit guidance and PNG can be implemented in a guided-missile system
using only LOS angle and angle rate information, respectively. However, an ad-
ditional ground station is required for a command to LOS guidance scheme where
the missile attempts to follow an EO beam directed at the target (see Figure 6-
23c(i)). These three classical guidance schemes are shown in Figures 6-35 in. the
 352 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

form of loop flow charts, and are compared through simulation in Table 6-1. Both
command to LOS and pursuit guidance laws are shown to have limited capability
to engage maneuvering targets. O n the other hand, P N G guidance can be imple-
mented fairly easily. PNG and its variants reduce the maneuver requirements and
can produce good miss-distance performance [Hiroshige, 19861. It has a long history
of acceptable performance and has been used successfully in several fielded-missile
weapon systems. Nevertheless, it also has its limitation in engaging targets with a
target-to-pursuer velocity ratio that is significantly greater than unity, or targets
with higher maneuvers. The maximum normal acceleration force required by PNG
is much less compared to that required for turning a pursuit or command to LOS
guided missile under any combination of disturbances. If no filter is provided in the
PNG, more drag and control command saturation can occur in the case where the
guidance system responds to seeker noise than occurs in the case where it responds
to true geometric guidance information. Both pursuit (attitude and velocity) schemes
are sensitive to biases. The miss distance is proportional to bias errors. However,
when there is no lag, that is, the guidance system time constant T, = 0, the sensitivity
to biases theoretically goes to zero for the PNG law since differentiation of the
constant bias of the LOS yields zero. The performance is limited by the control lag
T, in practice in any general LOS rate guidance system [Durieux, 1984; Neslines
and Lin, 19871. For a sampled data system where the last command is held for an
interval of time, decreasing the miss distance does not zero out the bias error [Leis-
tikow et al., 19671. Table 6-2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the
different guidance laws when they are used in combination with classical low-pass
noise filters. The state-of-the-art pneumatic actuator weight increases with side-

TABLE 6-1 COMPARlSOtl OP GUIDANCE LAWS POR SHORT-RANGE TACTICAL MISSILES

Pursuit
CLOS Beamrider Attitude Velocity PNG Optirml
Ability to engage Urgnr
Armracy (It CEP) <2 <2 > 30 >M <5 <I
Mmncuvmb'~lity Low Low Low Low Const velocity Accelaatins
A d d i d d criteria[ Yd(f,) l No No No No No Yes

~ ~
~.~~
-~. ~.
State required~ Ar:A~ LOS LOS LOS Full
~ ~

Ar:A~
On-board gyro (re0 Atl~tude Att~tudc No No 2 DOF 2 DOF
Gimbal mshanization (seeker) No No No Air vane Gyro Gyro
On-boud clstronics Same Same Same h e sdme MicrocomPU~er

Cost (on-bwd) 0.8 0.9 1 .O I .4 1.6 1.8

S m r requirements Wire link Optiul link Sceker Sceker Scekn Seeker

(wide FOV) (narrow FOV) (sutec measured
.nd estimated)

Airfrunelpopulsion requirements Low Low High High Low High

T a i u l considerations
"nre and forget" No No Possible Pouible Possible Possible

From [Pastrick et 21.. 1981). 0 1981 A l A A

 See. 6.5 Guldance Law 355

TABLE 6-2 COMPARISON OP CLASSICAL GUIDANCE LAWS

Guidance law Advantages I>isadvantagcs

1. Command-to-Line-of-Sight N o terminal seeker required. Very inaccurate against moving

Guidance targets and with winds.
Data link required.
2. Pursuit Noise insensitive. Easy to use Inaccurate against moving targets
with strapdown seekers. and with winds.
3. Proportional Accurate against constant velocity lriaccuratc against accelerating
tugets. targets. Stability is sensitive to
noise.
4. Pursuit + Pro Nav Between 2 and 3 in terms of Between 2 and 3.
accuracy.
5. Dynamic Lead Between 2 and 3 in terms of Between ? and 3. Stability
accuracy. Easy to use with problems if transition to pro
strapdown seekers. . nav occurs when significant
noise is present.

From [Gonzalez. 1979(b)]with permission from AGARD

force g requirement [Boykin and Jordan, 19711. The number of g's turning accel-
eration is limited by system requiremcnt weight allowances, and this leads to lim-
itation in the accuracy of the system when employing any guidance.

Pursuit guidance. Perhaps the first guidance law that was implemented
is known as pursuit guidance, resulting in a pursuit course, or the hound-and-hare
course. The pursuer aims directly at the target throughout the encounter like a dog
chasing a rabbit. In pursuit guidance (see Figure 6-37a). the angle between the
longitudinal axis ofthe pursuer (attitude pursuit) or the velocity vector of the pursuer
(velocity pursuit) and the LOS to the target is driven to zero or some constant value
(deviated pursuit) [Vriends, 19871. In both attitude pursuit and velocity pursuit, the
missile is commanded to turn at a rate equal to the LOS rate. Therefore, the missile
is constantly turning during an attack unless it is head on or tail on. While it permits
a simple implementation and is less sensitive to noise, pursuit navigation is consid-
ered impractical as a homing guidance law against moving targets owing to the
high maneuver requirement to end the attack in a tail chase. This is not strictly true
in the case in which the speed of the missile is very great compared with that of
the target, as in the case of a ship. In this circumstance, the small miss that results
from an intense last-instant maneuver is such that the missile still intercepts the
target. Figure 6-34b shows the missile velocity vector aimed at the target in three
positions along the trajectory. The direction of the missile velocity vector must be
sensed to steer the missile with this guidance law. Figure 6-37a illustrates target
intercept based on a pursuit course. Both pure and deviated pursuit trajectories are
shown for the case of constant missile and target velocity, with the missile's velocity
being twice that of the target. For the deviated pursuit course, a lead angle ~ r , , d , of
5 deg was used. For this particular encounter, it can be seen that the deviated pursuit
 Target
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Pure

Pursuit ( 5 O Lead Angle

Missile Velocity Equal Missile Velocity Equal

To 2 Times Target Velocity To 2 Times Torget Velocity

I
I

(--~issile
(B)

Figure 6-37 (a) Pursuit Goidancc (b) Constant Hcaring (;uidancc and PNG (Frorn [Heasrorr
(lrd Srrloors, 198.11 u,itlr penrrissiort.fiorrr GACIAC)
Sec. 6.5 Guidance Law 355

course results in a slightly shorter missile flight and earlier intercept [Heaston and
Smoots, 19831. Consider the equations of motion (2-2). For the following devcl-
opments t w o assuniptions are made: ( I ) the target is nonmaneuvering, so that V T
-
= constant, constant, and V,, m constant; and (2) since y~ = constant, it is
convenient to let y , = 0. With regard to the first assumption, an area of current
interest in modern control theory is the problem of determining thc optimal pursuit
and evasion stratcgics for a target and pursuer with arbitrary acceleration capabilities.
The problcm is fornlul~tedin the mathematical discipline of differential game theory.
Such problems arc vcry difficult and, thus, one must assume acceleration histories
to obtain analytic information (as is done here) [Powers, 19761. With assumptions
(1) and (2), the equations of motion (3-3) become R = VT cos u - V,,, cos(a -
y) and Ru = - V T sin u + V,, sin(u - y). For pursuit guidance, y = u; thus,
R = V T cos u - V,,, and Ru = - VT sin a. Note that u = 0 if u = 0 or T.
Therefore u will always be varying unless a = 0, a, which implies a head-on o r
tail-on path. Consequently, since y = a, the pursuer must be continuously turning
if u f. 0, a,a situation which is undesirable. Now, the pursuit equations are solved
dR v,,,
as - = ( - cot u + - csc a) da. Assuming that 0 5 u 5 a, then, upon inte-
R VT
gration,
1
en R = - tn(sin a) + )* en(tan - a)
2
+ constant (6-7)

where p = V m lV T . When 0 5 u a is assumed, the target is essentially assumed

to be "above" the pursuer. If the target is below the pursuer, then it is assumed
that 0 2 u 2 -a, and cot u = -cot I u ( and csc a = -csc I u 1. Equation (6-7)

i 59)'
is then integrated, giving R sin u / tan = C. This relation leads to the property
of pursuit guidance which terminates in a tail chase, that is, u(tf) = 0, for all cases
+
except the head-on case. Assuming a nonhead-on mission, has the following range
of values in the neighborhood of the terminal time:

+={ mifp>2
Oifk<2
and j~ =
if p > 1.5
0 if p < 1.5

For the head-on pursuit, k = 0 is possible if V T > 0. For the nonhead-on pursuit,
the pursuer must go faster than the target to be able to catch it in a tail chase. Thus,
> 1. As the objective o f the attitude pursuit guidance is to keep the centerline of
the missile pointed at the target, the velocity vector must always lag in the vehicle-
pointing direction while the missile flies at an angle of attack when maneuvering.
T o reduce the miss distance, the missile must be equipped with a high-g capability
for this attitude pursuit. Pastrick et al. [I9811 present an example of a simplified
control system diagram for both attitude and velocity pursuit laws, as illustrated in
Figure 6-38a. In the former, a wide-angle target sensor is required since it is typi'cally
mechanized to be body fixed. In the latter, a narrower field-of-view (FOV) sensor
 GUIDANCE GUIDANCE ACTUAlOR
'.E--,-
W L E
AND
M
- AlRFluw
EOUATIOI)
y
----I I
1I

OLD
1-4 . OF YOTION
--7
~ I
I 1
I I

$ loo
E
1!w
>
E
0
m
s
8
3 w

9
g
5ti "
8
fj 20

1
TAROET V E W I T Y M ( I

0 Rf U IOU
0.2 ACCELEMlloU
TMOCT M (LI

(8)

Figure 6-38 (a) Block Iliagram ofOnc Axis-Attitude and Vclocity l'ursuit Guid-
ancc (b) I'crfornlancc ofclassical Guidance Laws: Miss 1)istancc vs. Targct Vclocityi
Acceleration (Control Authority Indicated in g's) (Frotr~ll'asrritk ct ol., 1YRI1, 0
1981 AIAA)
Sec. 6.5 Guidance Law 357

may be utilized since the body is dccouplcd frorn the scnsor mount in a manner
described. In each case, K,\ is the forward guidancc gain, and it will
differ for each as will the feedback damping gain K,,. The guidance filter in Figurc
6-38a indicates that higher guidancc gain in the velocity pursuit law requires some
smoothing to inhibit noise of the target scnsor optics and its associated electronics.
The performance that may be expected from pursuit guidance is indicated in Figurc
6-38b. The data were obtained for a tactical wcaoon of the class known as close
support antitank. Although these are simulation results, cxpericncc with flight hard-
\varc over the past several years has validated the simulated perforrnancc to a high
degree of confidence. Pursuit guidance applies mainly to medium-range missions
that arc also characterized as launch-and-forget a t lock-on. The avionics allow for
simple processing, but there is a requirement for a missile homing sensor. Inertial
sensors, wind vanes, or angle of attack meters can be used for velocity vector di-
rection establishment [Goodstein, 1972(b)].

Attitude pursuit guidance. In attitude pursuit, the longitudinal axis of

the pursuer needs to be always kept along the LOS ro the target, that is, the guidance
algorithm t i , as shown in Figurc 6-36b. The two mutually perpendicular projections
of the angle between the longitudinal axis of the pursuer and the LOS, into the
planes in which the pursuer is steered in pitch and yaw, form the look angles of a L
and o,. (see Figures 6-36a and 2-10). Given that it is only required to measure UL
and a,,,the primary advantage associated with this guidance method is the way in
which it facilitates the task of obtaining the error parameters. The measurements
of UL and a,,are generally provided by radar or IR angle scnsors. The major de-
ficiency of this guidance method is that the aircraft's vclocity vector relative to the
LOS is not anticipated. When the aircraft is equipped with a homing missile, the
choice of guidance method takes into account whether the missile's antenna or EO
sensor is able to move relative to the missile while it is attached to the aircraft. Fixed
sensors are oriented along the missile's longitudinal axis, and the missile may locate
the target within a window bounded by a small solid angle. The bisector of such
an angle is approximately measured by the aircraft's longitudinal axis. Attitude
pursuit must be used in this case in order for the sensor to acquire the target. When
the aircraft employs ASM, the choice of guidance method ;akes into aicount the
maneuverability of the missile. If the missile has restricted maneuverability, then
attitude pursuit guidance is used, where the aircraft heading will be directly toward
the target prior to the missile's launch and initiation of its own guidance. During
this stage of flight, the aircraft's altitude is generally held constant. This technique
profits from the fact that the missile is not required to undergo complex maneuvers
in the horizontal plane subsequent to launch. However, because the aircraft must
be in close proximity to the target, this increases its vulnerability [Maksimov and
Gorgonov, 19881. With a missile that gets maneuver from body angle of attack,
and with perfect response u = 0, using Equation (8) of Table 2-2, the guidance
equation (shown in Figure 6-36b) becomes y, = u / ( l + T,s). That is, the guidance
358 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

system has a time lag o f T, even assuming a perfect response to the guidance error
equal to ( a - 0). The formulas for the miss distances are:
M = Ay V,,,T, [I - e-"Tm] for initial heading error or seeker bias equal to A y
M = AT,T% [[IT, - 1 + e-"Ta] for target acceleration AT,

(6-9)
Pursuit guidance with body-fixed seekers has poor miss-distance performance for
missiles that get their lift from body angle of attack [Hiroshige, 19861.

Velocity Pursuit Guidance. The use o f attitude pursuit is feasible with an

ASM guidance system when encountering stationary and slowly moving targets.
However, guidance errors arise even in the absence of wind as a result o f the generally
curvilinear nature o f the missile's reference trajectory, and the fact that the longi-
tudinal axis of the missile and its velocity vector are not always coincident. The
best results are obtained using velocity pursuit guidance, o r pure guidance, as it is
also called. If there is no skid, and if the error paramctcrs in heading and pitch are
generated in a roll-stabilized system of coordinates, then the form of the pursuer
trajectory control algorithms in thc horizontal plane is shown in Figure 6-36b,
wherein UI,,~and u$ are the lead angles between the projections of the line of sight
and the required aircraft velocity vector into the horizontal and vertical planes de-
fined as [Maksimov and Gorgonov, 19881 u,,,~ = UL - a sin and u$ = u,, - +
+
a sin 6 where a denotes the angle of attack and dcnotcs the roll angle. The essence
o f this guidance process is to align the aircraft's actual velocity vcctor with the
required vector. The prcccding equations show that the velocity pursuit technique
requires n~casuretncntsof the angles UL, u , . a,and 4. O f thcsc four quantities, the
last two arc measured rather casily. Also, the scckcrs for attitude and velocity pursuit
are somewhat similar in rcspcct to size and weight.

Deviated-pursuitlfixed-leadguidance. O n e aspect in which the ve-

locity pursuit method suffers has to do with the fact that it does not consider the
effects of wind on the pursuer, thus introducing additional guidance errors. Wind
effccts can bc offset by employing PNG or the fixed-lead mcthod. The fixed-lead
guidancc is also rcferrcd to as dcviated or modified guidance. Fixed-lead guidatlce
is dcfincd to bc the casc in which the angle bctwccn thc LOS and the pursuer's

-
vclocity vcctor rcnlains constant (scc Figurcs 6-36 and 2-10), that is,
urrur(1) - y(1) = ulrc,,,constant = Ulr,,d, [prcsct (partial) lcad angle] (6- 10)
The pursuer flics with a preset (partial) lead anglc, anticipating the future target
position and speed. The guidance algorithm is shown in Figure 6-36b. The addi-
tional lcad anglc is proportional to the LOS rate. That is, the anglc UL is changed
by an amount proportional to the LOS rate in the same plane. The guidancc objective
is to drive k , u ~ + k; 15 to zero, wherc k, and k; arc gains of the guidance command
processor. For a nonmancuvering target, thc values selected for these quantities are
Sec. 6.5 Guidance Law 359

such that the reference trajectory is approximately a straight line. With this guidance
algorithm, it can be seen that the required measurements for the fixed-lead guidance
method in the horizontal plane include U L and u. That is, V T . V m ,and y r need to
be known to determine the fixed-lead u,,,a. However, such a scheme might be
useful if it is known beforehand where the target is conling from, and a "spray"
of pursuers is sent up (for example, a crude antimissile missile system). If, as the
missile remains suspended from the aircraft, the missile sensor is able to move, then
it may follow the target with the help of signals from the aircraft's information
subsystenl. Such capability allows the missile seeker to acquire the target over a
wide range of angles relative to the aircraft's axis. If the target's motion is constant,
the missile may be guided to intercept by having the aircraft fly directly toward the
intercept point of the missile and target. Assuming straight-line uniform target
motion, guiding the aircraft to the best intercept point involves straight-line flight
and the computation of the proper lead angles u,,d< and u , (see Figure 6-36b)
[Maksimov and Gorgonov, 19881.

Constant-bearing guidance. A more efficient and less demanding

course than the pursuit course can be followed by predicting the target path and
directing the missile toward the predicted intercept point. This works well if the
prediction is correct, and can be accomplished by controlling the missile's trajectory
so as to keep the direction (LOS) to the target constant, that is, known as a constant-
bearing course. If an object appears to someone on a ship, for example, to be sta-
tionary while increasing in size, then that person realizes that he or she is on a
collision course with the object in question. Such a condition is also pertinent in a
missile-target engagement, and is known as constant-bearing navigation, which is
a two-point guidance (three-point realization). It is brought about by steering the
missile such that there is no rotation of the LOS. Figure 6-37b illustrates a constant-
bearing course for the same initial missileltarget conditions shown in Figure 6-37a.
This is the optimum course that can be followed for the conditions stated: constant
missile and target velocity, and nonmaneuvering targets. As shown, the LOS be-
tween the missile and the target maintains a constant direction in space, that is, the
LOS from missile to target always remains parallel to itself [Heaston and Smoots,
19831.
Thus, constant-bearing guidance is defined by u 0 (that is, the LOS does
f

not rotate). By proper orientation of V,,, at guidance initiation, constant-bearing

guidance will always intercept the target, even if the target is maneuverable. This
is easily seen as follows. Suppose, first, that the target is flying horizontally with
speed VT and the pursuer is located so that u(t) = uo and the guidance algorithm
is shown in Figure 6-36b. Without assuming constant speeds, to keep u = UO,from
Equation (2-2b) the components of the velocity perpendicular to the LOS must be
equal. That is, VT sin(u - y ~ =) V,,, sin(u - y). Therefore, the relative target-
pursuer velocity is actually being aligned with the LOS. The pursuer can catch the
target in the case V,,,> V T . The only indeterminacy left is the choice for y , which
can only be one of two possible choices since V,. sin(u - y ) is specified. The choices
360 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

are yl or a - yl since yt = sin(a - y,). This amounts to choosing the pursuer

velocity vector so as to close the gap along the range vector (pursuit) as opposed
to widening the gap (evasion). If the target does not maneuver, then the sit;atiO"
shown in Figure 6-37b occurs. The reason is that the components of velocity per-
pendicular to the LOS are equal
.
so that the two missiles are going the same Speed
. -
in the ~erpendiculardirection. However, at the same time, the radial distance is
decreasing continuously and eventually goes to zero. This is also apparent from the
equation for R (even for the maneuverable case). That is, suppose V , cos(a - y)
> VT COS(O.- YT),

and the integrand is always negative (which implies Ro - I $ [ ] d t I should eventually

equal zero, that is, a definite interception). Missiles that possess sufficient maneu-
verability permit the launch aircraft to be guided with a constant or programmed
bearing angle [Maksimov and Gorgonov, 19881. The missile will have to perform
postlaunch maneuvers in the case of a nonzero bearing angle, and some of its fuel
resources will be depleted in an effort to get on the required trajectory. It appears
that constant-bearing guidance might be the solution to all of the problems since it
will intercept a maneuvering target and is not as wasteful as pursuit guidance. How-
ever, constant-bearing guidance requires the pursuer to be able to detect and correct
instantaneously any changes in the LOS direction. Realistically, this would be asking
too much of any guidance system. Since constant-bearing guidance has so many
good qualities, it seems feasible to seek a slight modification of the scheme \x.hich
will make it easier to implement while preserving its good intercept characteristics.
O n e possibility is to treat u as an input error signal which the pursuer drlves to
zero by adjusting y. A simple way of doing this is to require j = X u since y =
constant when a = constant and y changes until jr = 0. Actually, such a guidance
scheme is called PNG and, indeed, it is the most popular homing guidance scheme.
The development of PNG was a major breakthrough in homing missile guidance.

Proportional navigation guidance (PNG)and its variations. The

fact that a constant-bearing course results in a collision course led to the development
of the PNG law. PNG is one in which the missile heading rate is made proportional
to the LOS rate from the missile to the target. The purpose of such a course is to
counter the tendency for the LOS to rotate and, hence, to approximate a constant-
bearing course. The initial turning rate of a missile launched on a collision course
and using PNG is zero. For a nonmaneuvering target, if the missile and target
velocities remain unchanged, the missile will continue on a collision course, having
achieved constant-bearing navigation. If it happens that the missile is not launched
on a collision course, there will be some curvature associated with the resultillg
trajectory that depends on the navigation constant. For a small navigation constant
A, the missile corrections are small early in the flight, yet may become quite Pro-
nounced as the missile nears intercept. The situation is reversed for larger values f
Sec. 6.5 Guidance Law 361

A, where the collision course errors are corrected early on in flight, and maneuvers
conscqucntly are kept at reasonable levels in the terminal phase. For values of A 5
2 (A = 1 is pursuit guidance), there is an infinite accclcration required in the region
of terminal flight. A lower limit therefore corresponds to A = 2. For valucs of A
close to 8, the missilc steers in response to very high-frequency noise as well as to
lower-frequency signals. This situation is characterized by gross oversteering with
a constant dithcr o f the controls and high drag [Trottier. 1987). A reasonable value
of h based on experience is usually set at between 2 and 4. 'The trajectory of a pursuer
operating with a PNG law is also plotted in Figure 6-37b. A purser turning rate
of three times that of the LOS rotation rate was used to plot the trajectory. As in
the Figure 6-37a, the missilc was launched in thc direction ofthe target. T h e rotation
of the LOS is measured by the seeker, which causes conlmands to be generated to
turn the missile in the proper direction. With PNG, the proper direction o f flight
is established shortly after launch, and the missilc then flies on a constant-bearing
(collision) course to intercept the target [Heaston and Smoots, 19831. If the LOS
does not rotate (in inertial space), a collision will eventually occur, as shown in
Figure 6-39a [Fossier, 19841. Substituting j = A u t o Equation (2-4) yields
Ru + [?R + V,,, cos(a - y)A] I?
(6- 12)
= V,,,sin(u - y) + YT cos(u - y ~ j~
) - vT sin(o - 7,)
If the pursuer velocity is constant and the target is not maneuvering, the right-hand
side of Equation (6-12) vanishes, and the behavior of u(t) is governed by a ho-
mogeneous differential equation. If the gain factor h(t) is set as A = - A,,R~[v,,,
cos(u - y)] = A,,, where A,, > 2, and substituted into Equation (6-12). then R u
- R[.A,, - 216 = 0, which can be solved analytically, giving
.A,, - 2

b = 6, (k) and hence j = jo (6- 13)

The solution o f this differential equation tends to zero for the pursuer-target closing,
that is, d ( t ) < 0. Equation (6-13) shows that b(t), which is maximum at the be-
ginning o f the flight, decreases linearly to zero for A, = 3 and approaches the value
of zero asymptotically for A,, > 3. The collision course condition of u(t) = 0 is
satisfied exactly at the final point R = 0 with a vanishing turning rate j = 0. Hence
the disadvantages of pursuit guidance are avoided by thc P N G law with the gain
factor A(t). As mentioned earlier, u(t) for P N G tends to the collision-course con-
dition u(t) = 0 for increasing values of A,,. Therefore, the constant-bearing guidance
is viewed as a special case of P N G in this approach, which is reached in the limiting
case of A, -* m.

Example 6-13. P N G is selected as the steering law for the T G S M of

Example 6-10. For the sake of simplicity, a linear model is considered for the homing
head (perfect information) and all TGSM characteristics. Such simplification still
makes it possible to obtain useful qualitative results. In the case of a fixed target, it
 INTERCEPT

MISSILE
LlNE OF SIGHT

\ UNDERSHOOT

MISSILE &TARGET
L.O.S.

MISSILE A L.O.S.
OVERSHOOT

TARGET

MISSILE TRUECTORY BASED

ON w (DECELERATION PHASE)
CONSTANT VELOCITY
TARGET TRAJECTORY

ENGINE
BURNOUT

A' MORE DIRECT MISSILE PATH

NOTE: IN THE DIRECT PATH. LINE OF SIGHT RATE IS POSITIVE BEFORE

BURNOUT AND NEGATIVE FOLLOWING BURNOW

Figure 6-39 Line-of-Sight Motion o f lntcrccpt ((aj.fio111[Fossirr, 19841, 8 1984

A I A A (~).FoIII[COIIZ~IPZ, AGARD)
IY7YIh/] ulifl1 pcrr~lissio~l.ho~s
Sec. 6.5 Guldance Law 363

is possible to analytically solve the PNG equations to find siniplc relations bctwccn
the initial altitude and look-down angle, and bctwccri the maximum acceleration
and impact anglc [Trottier, 19871. From Equation (6-13). the heading rate and,
consequently, acceleration for A,, ? 2 are maximum at the start of flight, diminishing
to zero at its end where R = 0. Equating Equations (6-13) and (2-2b), one has for
the end of the flight y, = - y,,l(A,, - 1). From the target's perspective, the final
heading o f the pursuer is always at an angle y,,l(i\,, - 1) above the initial LOS.
Figurc 6-40a is a diagram of pursuer altitude i t versus the down range x of the target
when the terminal phase is initiated. As sho\vn in the figure for :I,,= 1 and C;, =
I00 miscc, curvcs of constant impact angle arc straight lines emanating from the
origin, and curves of m a x i n ~ u macceleration form circles that are tangent to the
origin. Curvcs of constant impact angle are given for 20, 40, 60, and 80 dcgrees,
and curvcs of constant maximum acceleration correspond to 3, 3, 10, and 15 g.
Figurc 6-4Ob isolates that portion of Figure 6-40a in the pursuer's range of opcration
where the thick line with the arrow at an altitude of 130 m shows the trajectory
traced out by the pursuer during the search phase. Impact angles for this trajectory
can be anywhere between 30 and 60 dcgrees, depending on how much time is
required for acquisition. Thc acceleration requirement for this trajectory ranges from
9.8 to 13.6 g. The PNG eq~lationspresented here are valid for a stationary target
and provide the pursuer's required acceleration at the initiation of the terminal guid-
ance phasc in order to effect an intercept without acceleration saturation. This is
not to say that the occurrence of accelcration saturation eliminates the possibility o f
realizing a hit. Also, similar to the existence of a maximum acceleration capability
required to hit a stationary target at x = 150 m from an altitude of 130 m without
acceleration saturation, there also exists a minimum acceleration below which in-
tercept is not possible a t all. The former corresponds to 13.6 g, while the latter
corresponds to 6.8 g, at which acceleration the pursuer will fly in a circular path o f
130-m radius.

PNG System Design and Analysis. The preceding discussion of P N G as-

sumed constant missile speed and a nonmaneuvering target. Upon removing these
assumptions, Equation (6-12) is no longer a homogeneous differential equation.
The solution will not tend to zero unless the guidance law of PNG is extended to
compensate the driving functions o f Equation (6-12) as follows:

This type of guidance law is denoted by extended PNG (see Figure 6-36b). T h e first
term in the brackets represents the well-known drag compensation, whereas the other
terms provide target tnaneuver compensation [Goodstein, 1972(b)]. In most missiles,
normal acceleration is commanded instead of turning rate. Since-A,,, = V,,cos y o
+, the guidance Equation (6-6) is expressed as
u , = A,,,, = Vm cos yo A6 = lateral acceleration command (6-15)
 Guidance Processing Chap. g

I 1 1 I

2m 400 ba) 800 lax,

DOWNRANGE (m)
(A)

260

A 2CX)
L
T
I
1 160
u
D
E
(m)

60

60 100 260

Figure 6-40 (a) Curves of Constant Impact Angles and Constant Lateral Accel-
erations (b) Zoonl of Figure (a) in the Neighborhood of the Target (From [Trorrier,
19871 u8irh prnnissinn j o t n AGAKD)
Sec. 6.5 Guidance Law 385

The navigation ratio k;, used in Figure 6-35b(ii) is an inappropriate gain term. The
guidance gain should be kept srllall for most of the flight to maintain stability and
large a t the end of the flight to achieve a small miss distance. Assuming the overall
navigation loop gain K, = All, ( i l = effective navigation ratio) in Figurc 6-35b(ii),
the guidance equation becomes
A
rr, = - liu = ilI.., u and similarly in vertical plane rr,,. = AV, 6, (6-16)
1,

The missile's lateral accclcration history is generally invariant. The invariance is not
with A but with A = A I*',,, cos y,, 1 l,',, which is obtained by comparing Equations
(6-15) and (6-16). This indicates that the value selected for A should be proportional
to the missile-target closing rate. The rcsponsivcncss of the missile in correcting for
LOS rotation is thus determined by A. That is, a higher closing rate necessitates a
more responsive missile. Equation (6-16) shows that the missile velocity vector's
required lead angle results when the accelerations A,,,,. and A,,,: of the missile reach
rr,. and rri,,. In order to employ PNG, it is required to measure V,. as well as A,,,, and
A,,,:. An automatic target tracking system is used to measure 6 and u,. A is varied
to make the missile attain the degrce of rcsponsivcncss which is compatible with
its response, tracker noise, targcr s~gnaln o w , and target maneuvering capability.
One of the important features of PNG is the generation of a nearly straight-line
flight path for the missile to a slo\vly moving target. Another very important feature
of I'NG lies in its ability to cffectivelv deal with all attack altitude and aspects. That
the missile flies along a straight path with constant velocity, given that the target
also travels uniformly along a straight line, is most easily seen when A is very large.
For i l* 1, the LOS moves parallel to itself during the guidance process as shown
in Figure 6-3Ya. This type of LOS motion can occur only if the projections of the
missile and target velocity vectors V,,,and VTonto the normal to the LOS are equal
to each other. It can be shown through using elementary geometrical constructions
that these projections are only equal in the case of straight-line missile flight, with
V,,,equal to a constant and with uniform, straight-line target motion. In practice,
A 2 3 results in a nearly straight-line missile trajectory. It is not recommended to
increase A too much, in order ro straighten the missile's trajectory, since guidance
accuracy degrades as A is increased. This is a result of the manner in which the
effects of internal perturbations are made more severe as A is increased. Because the
missile control surfaces, used for steering in the horizontal plane, for example, can
be deflected by any angle required to make Amyequal to i r , , PNG can be used to
attack at all attitudes. Higher altitudes require greater deflections to produce the
required value of A,, for a given value of u,. Therefore, PNG-based guidance sys-
tems are able to adapt to varying external conditions. Owing to the presence of the
closing velocity V, in Equation (6-16), P N G possesses the ability to attack at all
aspects. This can be illustrated by assuming that the missile is steered in the hori-
zontal plane, and using Figure -3-11b. The system may be kept stable for any attack
aspect i f the guidance signal t i i generated by the guidance algorithm Equation (6-
366 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

16) is a linear function of the closing velocity V( [Maksimov and Gorgonov, 19881,
Applying Equation (2-6) to Equation (6-16) yields

The expression in parentheses in Equation (6-17) represents the miss distance that
would occur, lacking any target maneuver, if the missile underwent no further

Yr tit,
-=-A - +
A tZ A ( A - 2) (A- l)(A- 2) A(A-l)(A-2)
=Y

I
e
A -2

A-2
0

A=3
A=4

0 1.O

Illf
(B)
Figure 6-41 (a) Normalized Relative Trajectory (b) Missile Acceleration Required
to Overcome Step Function Target Maneuver (c) Missile Acceleration Required to
Overcome Initial Heading (d) Miss Distance Due to Initial I'osition Error y , (c)
Miss Distance Due to Target Maneuver ((b)-(r)jotn [Fosrirr, 19841, 0 1984 AIAA)
Sec 8.5 GuIdance Law

From Eq. (2-6), $=initial LOS rate =

V ~ Y , ( O ) / R * (+~ Y,(O]/R(O)
) = -v, HVNO).
assuming y,(O) = 0, yr(0) = -V,HE

Ax2

0 0.6 1.0

t/tf
(C)

(E)
(Continued)

corrective accelerations. This miss distance is termed the zero effort miss perpendicular
to the LOS. Thus, PNG can be considered as a guidance law in which the com-
manded accelerations are inversely proportional to the time-to-go squared and di-
rectly proportional to the zero effort miss [Nesline and Zarchan, 19811.
The normalized form for the miss distance due to a step maneuvering target
is shown in Figure 6-41. A normalized relative trajectory y, for different A is shown
368 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

in Figure 6-41a in which the ~ c r f e c sccker

t and noise filter are assumed, and a zero
lag dynamic system is also assumed, that is, T , ~ = 0 in Equation (2-35) Uerger,
19601. As shown here, a smaller position error will result from increasing A during
flight. The normalized form of the acceleration required by the P N G law in order
to intercept a step maneuvering target is shown in Equation (2) of Figure 6-41,
while its trajectory is illustrated in Figure 6-41b. It is shown that increasing the-
values of A vl,ill decrease the missile nlaxi~numacceleration requirements for target
-
intercept. Parasitic effects and noise considerations impose a practical upper limit
on the maximum value of A. From Equation (2) of Figure 6-41b, the maximum
missile acceleration required can be obtained at the intercept point as (II,),,,,, = I.
AT,,l(A - 2). Thus, three times the target maneuver acceleration at A = 3 is required
by the missile. More acceleration capability of the missile is generally required when
other noise inputs plus system dynamics are included, as shown further on in Figure
6-43a. The normalized form of the acceleration required by the PNG law in order
to intercept a targct with an initial heading error is shown in Equation (3) of Figure
6-41, while its trajectory is illustrated in Figurc 6-41c. The examples of Figures 6-
41b and 6-41c show that, for a target maneuver and an initial heading error, thc
lateral accelcratiori history is proportional to the disturbaticc. Further~norc.the shape
of this curvc is dctcrnlincd strictly by A. Using a simplified two-time lag control
system A,,,/e = Alf,r/(l + 7,,5/2)' it is possible to analytically dctcrrnine miss dis-
tance for thcse cases as shown in Figures 6-41d and 6-41c.
Following Travcrs [1965], Figure 6-42 dcfincs thc normalizations associated
with several coniponcnts of the error budget. Only one deterministic miss coni-
ponent is listcd, the miss duc to a step of cross velocity. It is a function of
normalizcd flight time rfl~,,.The remaining nor~iializedadjoints arc stochastic and
depend on the signal (targct accclcration) and noise I'SD, 4. Thc dil~~cnsionlcss
normalizcd adjoint cocfficicnrs in Figurc 6-32 arc indcpcndcnt of 7, and I]<. and are
functions only of the ordcr of the system (for exan~plc,fifth, in Equation 3-35) and
the navigation ratio A. Thcse coefficients can thcrcfore be computcd numerically if
A, the ordcr of thc systcm, and the distribution o f thc time constraints are given.
Thcse adjoints can also be dcvclopcd using the tncthodology of thc appendix of
Neslinc and Zarchan [1984(a)]. It is generally acccptcd that a fifth-order system (sce
Equation 2-33) is the lou~cst-ordcrmodcl that can be used to realistically model a
missile. The stability and pcrfornlance of the PNG, as discusscd previously, lvill
bc dccrcascd in rhc prcscncc of the systcm lag 7,. Advanccd guidancc law to bc
prcscntcd in Chapter H compcnsatcs this systc'tn lag. AgAii, thc total RMS miss
distancc is obtained by applying Equation (3-30). As sho\vn in Figurc 0-9f, ill-
t i i (7,,,,,, incrcascs thc tniss on account 01111-
creasing 7, beyond the o p t i ~ n ~ ~valuc
creased target mancuvcr and rcccivcr noisc contributions. O n the other hand, dc-
creasing T,,below (T,,),,,,,incrcascs the tniss o\ving to increased glint noise contributioll
IAlpcrt, 1988; Goodstcin, 1972(b); Ncslinc and Zarchan, 1984(a); Wcidcn~allnq
19841. For shorter flight time, thc miss distancc tends to be rcduccd by increasing
A. Howcvcr, noisc can increase the niiss distancc. A = 0 would givc thc best
accuracy for a mancuvcring targct in thc case of sinlulati~ig\vithout noisc. Larger
Sec. 6.5 Guidance Law

Normalized Miss Adjoints Normalized Acceleration Adjoints

5 ,(t,) I Tgt Mvr
M, =
<I2$:I2

a,, (5) ( Glint - IGlint

MY8 = $y 8 - '=8.j/2 LQ112
8

a (r ) ( Active RDN 4. I Active RDN

MmA=
<12 Q",'.,112
.t~,
f
2

- q,Jrf)I Semiactive RDN a,,"ISemiadive RDN

M m u -
eR:<
12
9m.S~

TJ: Target Maneuver

RDN: Range-Dependent Noise (RDN)
a,: Range-Independent Noise (RIN)
Yg: Glint Noise
myD: Deterministic Miss Due to a Step of Cross Velocity
0 . ,(t ): RhB Miss
y f
RMS Acceleration
Figure 6-42 Normalized Miss and Acceleration Adjoints (From [Travers, 19851
wifk permission from AACC)

A will cause the missile motion to have low-amplitude oscillation and the miss
distance to increase. These types of analyses made it clear that A should be maintained
at a value between 3 and 4 to avoid saturation in the endgame. It was also concluded
that, if such a value of A is maintained, a flight time of at least tenfold that of T, is
adequate to lower the miss caused by any disturbance to a very small value, as long
as there is no saturation of missile maneuvering capability (see Figures 6-43a through
6-43c). A particularly nice feature of homing missile guidance is that, as long as
such saturation does not occur, a linearized analysis of the intercept problem is quite
accurate. If there is saturation, however, the miss distance quickly grows too large
[Fossier, 19841. Studies have shown that A = 4 is a good compromise for low miss
distance (high A) and small time-to-go before instability occurs. Chapter 3 analyzes
the situation in which saturation occurs. An optimal-control based derivation of
PNG results in a time varying A, as is shown in Chapter 8. Figure 6-39b illustrates
P N G and a more direct approach path in which A will vary with the closing velocity.
Thus, A is picked for a tail, beam, or head-on chase, and the performance degrades
 Guidance Processing Chap. g

Homlng time = 10 seconds

- Glint spectral density = 100.8 f t 2 1 ~ ~
Glint time constant = 0.7 seconds
200 -
-
RMS miss - 79 = .2 sec
distance (ft)
-
-
100 -

Missile acceleration limit (g)

Figure 6-43 (a) The Missile Maneuver Capability Should Exceed Three T ~ m e sthat of the
Target (b) Terminal Homing Tlme to Reduce Effects of Step Target Maneover (To reduce
effects of step target maneuvers, a terminal homing time equal to 10 times the total system
time constant is required.) (c) Terminal Homing Time to Close Out Heading Errors (To close
out heading errors a terminal homing time equal to 10 times the total system time constant
is required.) (Courrcsy of K. H i r o s h k r , 1984)

for other cases. Radar missiles can directly measure V, and are therefore able to keep
A constant in spite o f varying target aspect. Another scheme uses filter theory to
provide an estimate of V , based on LOS rate and inertial body motion (rates). This
method could be applicable to passive seekers.
Through Equation (2-36). the fin deflection due to target maneuver and head-
ing error becomes a matter of scaling Equations (2) and (3) o f Figure 6-41 by
k i ' , while similarly determining RMS fin deflection due to target maneuver 2nd
measurement noise is done by scaling o,,in Figure 6-42 by k ; ' . Through Equation
(2-38), it is now possible to find fin rate response due to a step target maneuver
by differentiating Equation (2) of Figure 6-41 and then scaling by k i t . When this
is done, the result is
Sec. 6.5 Guidance Law

-
Slngle time lag
---
Two equal lime lag
A = Navigation ratlo
T~ = Total system
tkne constant
= Target acceleration
"I.,

Figure 6-43 (Continued)

From this result it can be seen that the maximum fin rate due to a step target
maneuver occurs at the beginning of flight. As noted in Nesline and Zarchan
[1984(a)], the fin rate standard deviation due to target maneuver and measurement
noises is obtained by dividing u,, in Figure 6-42 by T, and kl and then replacing
A, with Fi.As is true of acceleration, increasing A or decreasing T, always increases
fin rate activity.

Velocity compensated PNG (VCPNG). Another form of modified PNG

is VCPNG, wherein a compensation term of missile velocity change is introduced.
For a coasting missile with no velocity change (as caused, for example, by aero-
dynamic deceleration), PNG will work ideally against a constant-speed nonmaneu-
vering target. Since in reality every missile experiences veloc'ity changes, it seems
reasonable that some improvement could be gained by compensating the velocity
change, particularly when it is large. By introducting the lateral component of this
velocity change, the missile-guidance acceleration command is given in Figure 6-
36b [Kuroda and Imado, 19891.
372 Guidance Pr~~t?sSing Chap. 6

A = Navigation ratio
tg=Total system
time constant

-
HE= H e a d i error

--
~
Single time lag
Two equal time bg

'd7g
(C)
Figure 6-43 (Continued)

Pursuit plus PNG. O n e approach to combining elements of pursuit guid-

ance and PNG into one guidance law is to compute guidance signals based o n both
laws, provide a time-varying weighting factor for each, and sum the result. Such
an application usually weights pursuit guidance heavily at long ranges where the
noise problem is most severe and the accuracy rcquiremellts less severe. O f course,
a knowledge of time-to-go or range is required [Gonzalez, 1979(b)].

Dynamic lead guidance. Dynamlc lead guidance provides results sinlilar

t o the weighting technique, but for different reasons. At small LOS rate frequellcies
(which typically occur at long ranges), the guidance law behaves like pursuit guid-
ance; at large LOS rates (which typically occur at short ranges), it behaves like PNG.
The advantage is that no estimate of range or time-to-go is necessary. T h e behavior
transitions "automatically" based on the frequency of the input signal. It also has
the advantagc of better performance in atypical situations (for cxamplc, largc LOS
Sec. 6.5 Guldance Law 373

rates a t long ranges). However, stability problenls can occur if significant noise is
still present when the guidance law transitions to a I'NG-type behavior [Gonzalez,
1079(b)].

6.5.3 Sensitivity and Comparison of Guidance Laws

Factors which increase the miss distance are greatly manifested during the terminal
part of the homing phase due to the error sources caused by the mano target and
the homing sensor target acquisition capability [Cloutier, 19901. Although H guid-
ance law may call for high turning rates, the missile may not becapable of responding
and will not be able to follow the intercept trajectory. In this regard, an advantage
of PNG over pursuit guidance is the fact that course corrections are made early in
the missile flight. If the called-for acceleration exceeds the missile's capability, there
may be enough time left to achieve the proper flight path with the missile turning
as position errors that are directly proportional to the range between the target
tracker and the target. Consequently, an above-standard tracking system that has
small angle tracking errors is essential for accurate guidance at long ranges. Laser
beam-rider guidance is used for antitank (SSM and ASM), antihelicopter (AAM)
and short-range air defense missiles (SAM) because of its high electronic counter-
measure resistance. MMW beam riding is an all-weather alternative for laser beam
riding. In pursuit guidance, the maximum turning rates occur at the end of the flight
when there is little time left. As shown in Chapter 8, with the development of highly
maneuverable targets, pursuit guidance has become outmoded and PNG has become
somewhat of a marginal guidance law. New guidance laws are being developed that
utilize more information about the missileltarget encounter such as range, closing
velocity, time to intercept, missile acceleration, and target maneuvers, and incor-
porate the optimization of the missile's trajectory and expansion of missile launch
envelopes [Heaston and Smoots, 19831.
The nominal conditions of the air target engagement are displayed in Figure
6-44a. The interceptor to the left is assumed to have a speed V, of 2,000 ftlsec,
and be 5 degrees off the LOS to the target in a top view. The analysis is for the
horizontal plane only. The range at the start of the simulation is 10,000 ft. The
speed V r of the target at the right of Figure 6-44a is assumed to be constant at
1,000 fps, at 0 degree with the LOS, so that the nominal engagement time is about
3.5 seconds. The parameters that affect miss distance as a function of guidance law
are shown in the boxes of Figure 6-44a. They are: target, varied off the LOS; target
speed; magnitude of target acceleration for evasion capability, measured as a target
turn capability to the target's right; sensor bias in the measurement of the LOS
angle; sensor noise from all sensor causes at two different levels of target generated
noise; and the average magnitude of a wind gust from one side whose instantaneous
magnitude is a random function of time. The study results for air targets are dis-
played in Figure 6-44b. The sensitivity of the guidance laws to target heading is
shown in Figure 6-44c. The PNG's use of LOS rate measurement produces larger
corrective action earlier than the LOS law or the pursuit law. The latter two respond
 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

F TARGET
I

Figure 6-44 (a) Nominal Conditions (b) Guidance Law Trends for Air Targets
(c) Guidance Law Sensitivity to Target Heading (d) Guidance Law Sensitivity to
Target Speed (e) Guidance Law Sensitivity to Target Acceleration (1) Guidance Law
Sensitivity to Sensor Angle Bias (g) Guidance Law Sensitivity to Noise (h) Guidance
Law Sensitivity to Wind Gusts (i) I'roportional Guidance Law Variations fj)Guid-
ance Law Trends for Surface Targets (k) Pursuit Guidance Law Variation (From
(Goodstein, 1972(b)] upirh pcnnission j o ~ nACARD)

too late when the missile is not going to come quite close as the last few seconds
begin. When plotted to the scale of 100 feet for maximum miss distance, the sen-
sitivity of the guidance laws to target velocity over a range between zero and double
the nominal speed seems small, as shown in Figure 6-44d. Close examination shows,
however, that PNG, subject to the errors in angle rate measurement, produces a
larger miss distance than the other laws as target speed increases. Figure 6-44e shows
Sec. 6.5 Guldance Law

Figure 6-44 (Continued)

that, as target acceleration increases, all the guidance laws produce commands which
lead to similarly increasing miss-distance magnitudes. However, if the gain for PNG
is raised by one third, the miss distances fall noticeably, as shown in the lowest
curve marked as having a higher proportionality constant. Similar changes to the
LOS and pursuit laws do not produce similar improvements. Bias errors in the LOS
measurement can come from mechanical installation, boresight procedures and
changes, radome errors, electronic component changes, and mechanical changes.
For the LOS and pursuit guidance, which depend on steering directly at the target,
increasing bias errors in LOS measurement will cause increasing miss distances.
 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

- LINE-OFEIOHT

1 2 1 1 6

Figure 6-44 (Continued)

I'NG, however, is essentially insensitive to bias errors, since they produce no angle
rate error. This trend can be seen in Figure 6-44f [Goodstein, 1972(b)].
While P N G can handle a fixed- or bias-angle error, it can be prone to causing
erroneous steering signals as a result of noisy angle sensing, leading to very noisy
angle rate information. Figure 6-44g displays the effects of sensor noise on miss
distance, showing LOS and pursuit guidance to be less affected by the angle noise.
The solid curves are for sensor noise with no glint or noise from the target. As
shown in Figure 6-44h, the response of the LOS guidance law to wind gusts is
slow. Pursuit guidance, with its sensing of the velocity vector direction, and PNG,
 UIO
olnun~ /'
(F7RMSl UI-

NO TARGET
NOISE
--- '20 111~;'
TARGET
NOISE

0 5 10 15 20 25

NOISE I Y R I M ~ ~ I
(G)

MIS
DISTANCE
WIND GUST MAGNITWE
IFT RMSl
t

WIND O W MAGNITUDE I K W l S l

(H)
Figure 6-44 (Continued)

in which the LOS rate change is detected quickly when the missile is blown off
course, are both less sensitive to the wind. As summarized in Goodstein [1972(b)],
the LOS and pursuit laws are seen to have poor or average performance in several
categories, but the avionics equipment cost and complexity is less for these laws
than for PNG. The PNG performance is good in all categories except in its response
to noise. Angle rate measurement noise, homing sensor noise, and target noise all
cause responsiveness which generates steering signals driving the missile all over
the sky.
A guidance law analyst should select the lowest cost, simplest guidance law
 Guidance Procasing Chap. 6

FOR TAROIT w I m PEED

ADVANTAOE

"EARLY A N D " U T L " L

BIRD FDR WARHEAD
EFFECTIVENESS O0 TIME TOGO

REDUCE POWER
wwm1w
REDUCE OLCWWIYN

AVMO CLOUSR
BERER TAROCT SIQNATURC
B E n c n FOR WARM^^ E r r E c n

(K)
Figure 6-44 (Continued)

which can meet miss-distance or kill-probability requirements. Against air targets,

simpler engagement situations can use LOS or pursuit guidance. PNG is employed
for more difficult engagements. When the straightforward implementation cannot
provide sufficient performance, modifications may be required at the expense of
additional equipment and complexity. Two examples of modifications to PNG are
shown in Figure 6-441. The advantages to adding a bias to the steering signal are
listed as follows. The bias can bring the missile more nearly into a head-on situation,
assisting against fast targets and missile loss of speed due to control application.
Some targets are more vulnerable to warhead effects from the top or bottom, and
a correct bias can make the missile arrive early or late-high or low-for an an-
ticipated target and closing geometry. Another technique in use is to change the
guidance constant as a function of time-to-go to intercept. This reduces control
activity and, with it, power consumption and speed loss. In the same manner as
sensitivity studies and applicability trends for guidance laws with air target situatiolls
have been studied, studies of surface targets can be performed. As target motion is
not involved, the presence of land or sea can call for warhead detonation above the
 Sec. 6.6 Single-Mode, Dual-Mode, and Multlmode Guidance 3 70

target in somc cases, rather than impact, as an additional consideration. In Figure

6-44j, a tabulation of general trends of guidance law performance against surface
targets is displayed. For LOS steering to the target, the trajectory tends to flatten
and, for low approaches, raises the probability of clobber. Sensor angle bias has a
similar effect on LOS and pursuit guidance. The overall assessment leads to pursuit
and PNG have similar performance. With smaller avionics costs, pursuit guidance
is frequently chosen over PNG for surface targets. As with air targets, many varia-
tions are used. Applying a bias to the steering signal when still far from the target
provides a higher trajectory as shown in Figure 6-44k. This leads to less chance of
clobber, a better view of the targets, and, in somc cases, much improved warhead
lethality.

6.6 SINGLE-MODE, DUAL-MODE, AND MULTIMODE GUIDANCE

Referring to Figure 6-1, after analyzing the guidance processor, guidance algo-
rithms, and available guidance laws, the designer is faced with the decision of which
guidance mode to employ. The majority of homing systems that operate in both
active and passive modes include semiactive-passive and active-passive systems. The
target signal used in a homing scenario depends on the particular situation at hand,
the goal always being to provide the best system performance. System performance
here may denote longest operating range, accuracy, antijamming performance, and
so on [Maksimov and Gorgonov, 19881. Single-mode guidance has an insufficient
launch range for most missions. Most conventional guidance systems operate only
one seeker (either RF or IR) in a dense, environment degraded, and electronic coun-
termeasured environment. Multimode guidance schemes can be regarded as the
process of combining several seekers to enhance target tracking and target classi-
fication capabilities. The technology required for such alternate or supplemental
guidance modes are active transmitters, multiband antenna systems, and IR domes
for high-speed flight. Besides the need to physically integrate multiple sensors into
a guidance package, one also has to define the multimode guidance system control
logic.

6.6.1 Single-Mode Guidance

Inertial guidance, although extending launch range, is not adequate for maneuvering
targets. Command inertial guidance also extends the launch range and reduces ter-
minal mode acquisition errors. However, it is not sufficiently accurate for terminal
guidance, and requires a data link to the missile. Command guidance, while char-
acterized by a simple and inexpensive design, limits system firepower.

Home-all-the-wayguidance. When a missile derives its own steering

commands throughout flight based on the processing of signals received from the
target, this is known as a home-all-the-way guidance policy as noted in Witte and
380 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

McDonald [1981]. In order to realize this type of guidance policy, the target must
be acquired either prior to or just after launch. This type of guidance is illustrated
in Figure 6-4c, in which the various phases in the firing of an SM-1 are shown.
The missile is supplied on the launcher with a postlaunch prediction regarding angle
and Doppler frequency of the target. Subsequent to an unguided boost phase, either
target-reflected energy from shipboard illumination or jamming energy emanating
from the target is acquired by the missile seeker. As shown in Figure 6-4b, making
up the seeker are a gimballed antenna and a radar receiver that measures the angle
of arrival of the received signal. Closing velocity, as determined from the Doppler
frequency, together with LOS angle information is supplied to the missile-guidance
computer by the seeker as it tracks the target. With the help of a PNG law, the
guidance computer generates steering commands that in turn maintain a collision
course for the missile.
Numerous missile systems make use of semiactive, home-all-the-way guid-
ance, one reason for which is that this type of guidance provides rather good intercept
range. Good intercept range is the result of high-power ship-based or ground-based
illumination coupled with the use of up-and-over flight trajectories. The latter,
which better maintain available kinematic energy, are achieved by launching the
missile at a somewhat steep angle and allowing it to climb above the target early
in flight. However, inasmuch as one of only a few illuminators must be committed
to a single target for the duration of missile flight, home-all-the-way guidance suffers
a drawback in its relatively low firepower. Figure 6-4d shows a second limitation
of this type of guidance that centers around the numerous signals that may be found
simultaneously at the missile's receiving antenna in a jamming and adverse weather
environment. It is certainly much more difficult for the missile receiver to pick out
the target signal immediately after launch than it would be if acquisition could be
delayed until later in flight.

6.6.2 Dual-Mode Guidance

Midcourse plus terminal guidance. Midcourse guidance generally re-

fers to an intermediate flight phase during which the missile receives enough in-
formation from an external source so as to be able to guide or steer toward the
target without the need to home. T w o types of midcourse guidance commonly
found in practice are command and inertial systems. With the former, there is an
accepted coordinate frame in which missile steering signals are directly supplied. In
the lattcr, information externally supplied to the missile is used to guide it toward
a point or a succession of points in inertial space. Assuming that the ship, aircraft,
or a launch site is capable of providing the neccssary support, a substantial im-
provement in firepower and missile intercept coverage can be realized by the use
of midcourse guidance followed by a relatively short period of terminal homing.
The fact that firepower is increased over home-all-the-way guidance is evident given
that semiactive homing is confined to the terminal portion of flight. ~ o n s e ~ u e n t l ~ y
a more efficient use can be made of thc shipboard and airbornc illuminators, making
Sec. 6.6 Slngle-Mode, Dual-Mode, and Multlmode Guldance 381

it possible to engage a larger number of targets. An adequate kinematic capability

on the part of thc missile coupled with sufficiently accurate midcourse trajectory
control allows a small target to be engaged a t a longer range than could occur if
seeker acquisition were necessary early in flight, as happens with home-all-the-way
guidance. The smaller missile-to-target propagation distance a t the start of the ter-
minal homing phase also makes for increasing target return relative to some of the
sources of interference shown in Figure 6-4d. Specifically, it is more likely that the
missile will "see" the target in the presence of standoffjamming following a period
of midcourse guidance than it is immediately subsequent to launch [Witte and
McDonald, 19811.

Dual-mode concepts. A particular case of multimode systems is that of

dual-mode guidance systems. Guidance mode options in midcourse phase include
inertial, common position grid, command inertial, command, command LOS (beam
rider or CLOS), ARH, correlation matching, semiactive, and so on. Dual-mode
midcourse guidance combinations include ARH together with outband home-on-
jam (HOJ), or HOJ in conjunction with RHOJ, or any number of other possible
combinations. Guidance mode options in terminal phase include semiactive, active,
IR, wideband HOJ, ARH, HOJ, and so on. Dual-mode terminal combinations
include semiactive terminal supplemented by either active or IR, active terminal
supplemented by IR, ARH combined with outband HOJ, HOJ combined with
RHOJ, and so on. These systems have become very attractive inasmuch as they
achieve a synergistic combination of sensor capabilities. It is possible, for example,
to reduce the required performance of either sensor by using an inertial guidance
system, which has high-frequency accuracy, with LORAN or GPS, which has low-
frequency accuracy. By coupling the long-range, low-accuracy, and all-weather
capabilities of ARH with the short-range, high-accuracy, and fair-weather capa-
bilities of T V or IIR, it is possible to increase the overall system capabilities beyond
what could be obtained with either one of these sensors. Moreover, the resistance
to countermeasures can be increased by combining ARH with T V or IIR, or MMW
with IIR. The disadvantage of using a single-mode (inertial only) guidance system
is highlighted in Figure 6-45a, which illustrates how shutdown can hamper this
guidance system. Figure 6-45b illustrates the use of dual-mode guidance for a flight
mission profile [Hardy, 19861.

Integrated navigation and guidance system. Some of the benefits

that can be gained from applying an inertial navigation system (INS) to modern
air-to-ground weapons include making these weapons invulnerable to counter-
measures, reducing their size and cost, and reducing the performance requirements
of terminal guidance seekers. Conceptual advanced air-to-ground weapons generally
require a low-altitude launch, followed by a midcourse flyout to the target vicinity,
and autonomous acquisition of the target from an onboard seeker. In spite of much
effort having been spent in the last decade on the development of autonomous seekers
for both fixed and mobile targets, there is not currently a sensor mechanization that
 8 2
5P
21 5
2i
0
8"
.- -2%
-a?

s8
-L
e,

UJ

T U
z z
u3
- -
-
t-
3 s 5c -G
a
I
u0 'Eu
fn
YI
0
-.-*:.
= 2
F 6g
'r
I

2
:-
c

---
a 2
C G
V) 0
a6
C
In .O

.-L i z -
 Sec. 6.6 SIngleMode, Dual-Mode, and Multlmode Ouldance

CROSS HAIRS BLINK

I
I
I
INITIATE
COCKPIT DISPLAY LOCK-ON TO
A T INITIATION TARGET RF

FLY I N

- - \ BLIND

COCKPIT DISPLAY
A T ARH LOCK-ON

(8)
b lMPACT
TARGET
VEHICLE
PSEUDO DELTA
RANGE AIDING
MATICS RECEIVER
DESIRED
TARGET
PSEUDO RANGE COORDINATES
PSEUDO DELTA RANGE

r --I-- -------- - -
GUIDANCE PROCESS OF^^
I KALMAN
FILTER VEHICLE I
I i
POSITION
AND i
I
MEASURED
VEHICLE '
INERTIAL
VELOCITY STEERING 1 FLIPPER
MOTION I ESTIMATE: GUIDANCE
+ IMU * NAVIGA- LAW
COMMANDS
,AUTOPILOT
1 COMMANDS
TlON NAVIGATION
I CORRECTIONS I
I t I

VEHICLE
3
CLOSED LOOP GUIDANCE

FLIPPER
MOTION MISSILE MOTION ACTUATOR
DYNAMICS ' DYNAMICS
-.
(C)
Figure 6-45 (Continued)
384 Guidance Processing Chap. 13

has gained widespread acceptance. Studies have concentrated on passive IR, active
MMW, laser and SAR seekers, and autonomous target acquisition algorithms; hoiv-
ever, no generally applicable seeker hardware has entered the production stage. The
proposed
- - technologies have failed to conquer problems in the areas of robustness
-

of acquisition algorithms to diverse targetlbackground scenarios, weather, and

countermeasures. Unlike air-to-ground seeker technology, navigation concepts for
air-to-ground weapons are well developed and ready for near-term production. INS,
Doppler-aiding devices, and global positioning system (GPS) hardware developed
by several parties have proved reliable, and are decreasing in both their packaging
volume and cost. By using a combination of these three navigation components, it
- -
is possible to achieve a high degree of scenario independence and countermeasure
resistance [Kain and Cloutier, 19891. Figure 6-45c shows an example of guidancc
applications using dual-mode, integrated GPSlinertial guidance system. As shown
in Chapter 7, the integration of an inexpensive strapdown I M U and a single-channel
P-code GPS receiver results in an accurate navigation solution with in-flight IMU
calibration and alignment capability. In this integration scheme, INS velocity is used
to aid GPS acquisition and tracking,- while the GPS measurements are used to es-
timate IMU errors. By employing a data-decoupling technique, separate GPS and
INS Kalman filters arc able to operate independently on the satellite LOS pseudo-
range and delta-range measurements. In addition to its modularity, the system per-
mits GPS-alone or 1MU-alone navigation by using separate hardware for the GPS
receiver and INS computer. The GPS receiver, moreover, uses baroaltimeter data
to extend its operation during periods of fewer than four SV coverage [Mickelson
and Carrico, 19891.

6.6.3 Multimode Guidance Applications

Most conventional guidance systems operate only one seeker, either RF or IR, in
a dense, environtncnt-degraded, and ECM environment for target sensing andlor
tracking. Multispcctral guidance uses at least two wavelengths for target sensing
and/or tracking. The following are some examples of multispectral guidance: the
use of two-color IR, dual-frequency RF, IR and RF, or IR and ultraviolet as in the
STINGER-POST air defense missile. Multimode midcourse guidance combinations
include command inertial supplcmcntcd by HOJ and RHOJ; command inertial to-
gether with sen~iactive,HOJ, and RHOJ; and other possible cotnbinations. Mu[-
timode tcrnlinal guidancc combinations include active conlbincd with HOJ, active
combined with scmiactivc and HOJ, active cornbincd with 1R and HOJ. and other
possibilicics. The use of two frequcncics or \n,avclengths rcduccs thc effect of coun-
tcrmcasurcs, cnhances target detectability, dccrcascs false alarnls, and increases ac-
curacy. Difficulties may be cncountcrcd when implcmcnting multispectral methods
because of thc complexity in sclccting and handing over from onc sensor to another
as thc target is approached.
Midcoursc and homing guidance systems are commonly included in a single
missile. Much cffort has recently been aimcd at using multimodc systems that em-
Sec. 6.6 Single-Mode, Dual-Mode, and Multimode Guidance 385

ploy more than one guidance mode in the ternlinal homing phase. The purpose of
these systcn~sis to defeat enemy countermeasures, provide higher accuracy, reduce
false alarms, or enhance target dctcctability as compared to a single-mode system.
This tern1 is occasionally used erroneously to describe systems that use more than
one portion of the clectromagnctic spectrum for their operation. For instance, a
system may employ both active millimeter waves and passive IR, which is both
multimode (active and passive) and multispectral (MMW and IR). l)uc to the ad-
ditional sensor and signal processing requirements, the onbonrd electronics and pro-
cessing rcquircmcnts increase in complexity and cost with multimode systems.

Multimode guidance: radar and IR. In general, radar signals alone may
not meet the accuracy requirements. The performance of a radar-guided missile has
been shown to be considerably limited to dense electronic environments. An IR
guidance can be added on to a radar-guided missile to improve the performance of
a tactical radar-guided missile. This added-on IR guidance is used to overcome the
effects of radome-induced instability at high altitudes, to increase immunity against
jamming, and hence to reduce the miss distance. 1R and optical signals are limited
by the weather and E O environments. In a guided missile using only IR, in adverse
environment the SIN at the IR receiver decreases. The low SIN might cause the
IR seeker to lose track of the targct. Therefore, the adverse E O environment has a
dominant effect in degrading the IR seeker operation. Since a radar-guided missile
is insensitive to weather or environmental changes, a radar guidance added on to
an IR-guided missile can provide accurate target tracking. Thus, a multimode seeker
system can operate under all weather conditions and environments, is immune t o
jamming, can overcome the effects of radome-induced instability a t high altitudes,
and hence achieves better intercept performance over a single-seeker system. The
configuration and the function block diagram for IR and RF guidance systems are
discussed in Book 1 of the series. A multimode cracking and guidance loop is the
only control scheme of accurate homing on target under adverse RF and E O con-
ditions. Figure 6-46a shows a conventional approach to the design of this tracking
and guidance loop, while Figure 6-46b illustrates a more innovative approach. The
noise effects are attenuated by the midcourse target tracking algorithm, thus reducing
heading error at handover. A multimode guidance consisting of RF and IR seekers
is considered in this figure. Either active or semiactive RF or both with a common
aperture antenna design may be used. RF-IR homing systems operate with sem-
iactive radar during the initial stage of the homing phase, and with IR during the
subsequent stage. In situations with active radar, both RF-IR modes function to-
gether. Based on two tracking outputs from RF and IR seekers, a multimode target
tracking algorithm including signal processing and decision logic is implemented
as shown in this figure. The outputs from the target tracking algorithm are then
passed to the advanced terminal guidance algorithm to provide the appropriate guid-
ance steering commands as shown in this figure. The function block diagram of the
multimode seeker system has been illustrated in this figure as the upper part (above
the broken line). Figure 6-46a shows that the target is tracked in the RF and IR
 386 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

I
Range &
Seeker Head
I + Transmit1
h i v e -C
Digital
Signal * Range Rate
Measure-
Unit Processor
ment
Signal
I
- 1
Radome Gimbal + Target
Couplin# Drive Detector
-1 (Chap. -)
Unit __* Multimode Motion

Signal
I
Target
Tracking 4
Algorithm
(Chap. 8.12 + Advanced Accele-
f
/ b
IR
Receiver & Book I ) Terminal
-* ration -* FCSi
Airframe
Guidance Compen- (Book 3)

-
Unit
4 -4
I + Algorithm
8.1-8.5)
(Chaps.
sator
( . b k3)
Digital
signal
LOS 9
1 ~rocessor Rate

- - -1- - - - - - - - -- - - --
Terminal Guidance
Sigal 7 Midcourse
/ I ' uplink
S19al
Target
Tracking
' Advanced
Midcourse -
Guidance
Receiver Algorithm Guidance
I . (Chap. 7 ) Algorithm
(Chaps.
8.6 & 8.7)
I (A)
Figure 6-46 (a) Multimode Tracking and Guidance Loop Design (b) Optimized
On-Sensor Fused IIFIlH Guidance Svstem

modes simultaneously for the active RF. This figure also applies to semiactive RF
handover to IR search a t which point the missile homes on the target using only
IR after lock-on.
An integratcd RFIIR sensor asscmblv of a missile system shown in Figurc 6-
46b has been developed by A G N C [199(;] to enhance targct dctcction and ECM
capabilities. In the past, the RF seeker and 1R seeker \Irere designed indepcndcntly.
The purpose of this optimized on-sensor-chip-fused RFIIR guidance system (OF-
RIGUS) is to integrate the front-cnd targct dctcction and ECM circu~nvct~tion sub-
systems by sensor signal fusiorl at read-out stage and on-sensor-chip analog signal
processing (ASI'), thus improving continuous targct tracki~~g/rccog~~ition 2nd
ECCM capabilitics over current state of the art. Benefits of this integrated sensor
include: ( I ) fast signal processing-Integration of RF and I11 sensors in the same
assembly improves signal processing speed and reduces the weight; (2) compact-
ness-More room can be allocated for the IR focal-plane array (FPA) and for fol-
lower signal processing electronics; (3) fault tolcrancc-Dual-mode sensor is rcliablc
 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

against failures. It also has a robust ECM circu~nventioncapability by employing

an onfoff slyitching mode of active/passi\~cM M W radar; and (4) a ~ ~ u r a ~ y - C o o l i ~ ~
can be extended to the read-out and ASP electronics, thus improving the accuracv,
The integrated sensor is assembled primarily out of off-the-shelf components. 1"-
novative technologies such as uses of a staring M M W imaging FPA sensor to reduce
the scanning time, EHF MMICs and superconductors to improve the passive MMw
sensor performance, faster ASP chips for the on-sensor-chip signal processing, and
a parallel processing algorithm for algorithm implementation are also accounted for,

Multimode guidance using inertial guidance. With RF-inertial sys-

tems, the necessary information is collected from radar and inertial units, the latter
t w o working together as a combined system. Depending on the setup, the inertial
unit is corrected by the radar data, or the inertial and radar systems correct one
another [Maksimov and Gorgonov, 19881. A superaccurate refinement used as an
add-on subsystem in one important missile is terminal radar; the missile flies most
o f its trajectory on inertial guidance, but in the final seconds, as it plummets down
on the target, it compares stored information-in effect it looks at detailed radar
pictures of the target area, though these pictures are probably stored as digital in-
formation-with thc scene its own active radar actually sees, and corrects its tra-
jectory until the two scenes match exactly. O f course, in any case where the target
is itself an cmittcr-of radar or radio signals, visible light, heater (in theory if not
yet in practice) noise-it is relatively simple to make a missile home on to it au-
tomatically. The accuracy of an incrtial guidance system is typically expressed in
terms of drift rate. For most tactical systems, since thc flight time is normally rather
short, low-accuracy inertial componcnts may achicvc satisfactory pcrforn~ance.If
longcr flight times arc required, thc missile's position may be updated by cmploying
another kind of position-fixing tcchnique. As presented in Chaptcr 5 , position up-
dating may be achicvcd by utilizing satellite data fro111 the GIJS; from landmarks
sensed by either radar, IR, or clectro-optical devices and used for area correlation;
through terrain profile data correlated with stored data, as in cruise missiles using
T E R C O M ; or through some othcr technique. Cruise missiles invariably have inertial
guidancc but back this up with TERCOM for near-perfect final accuracy. Sensitive
altimeters n~casurethe profile of the ground directly below and chcck thc result
against storcd information. Each set of rcadings is uniquc to onc strip of land. INS
is cmploycd in ICBM, whcrc the targct location and thc launch position arc known.
These highly accuratc 2nd cxpcnsivc navigation systcms arc not only used i n lnissil~s
but also on long-range aircraft, ships, and submarincs. This totally sclf-contained
systcm is idcal for ICBM and SLBM. Its accuracy depends on how precisely the
launch position is known and falls off with time (however, ballistic missiles arc very
fast). Submarine irlcrtial navigators h a w to be updated by othcr means to avoid
errors in launch position. Early intcrcontincntal cruisc nlissilcs updatcd thcir inertial
guidancc by astronavigation. Star trackers kept nlcasuring the cxact azimuth and
elevation of selected stars to provide a running chcck [Gunston, 1979).
Sec. 6.6 Single-Mode, Dual-Mode, and Multimode Guidance 389

Multimode guidance using command guidance. The accuracy of

command guidance decreases at long ranges because of the trnns1.1tion of the angular
pointing errors in the trackcrs into position errors that arc dircctly proportional to
range. Thus, as the distancc from the tracking equipment that produces the com-
mands increases, the target and missile position errors also increase. T o increase
command guidance accuracy a t intercept, the rnissilc can carry the target sensor,
such as a T V camem. For example. TV svstcrns are utilized bv the WALLEYE ASM
- C

and GBU-1.5 elide bomb. In this case, the T V signals arc transmitted back to the
operator who uses some kind of data link to control the missile. Radio links have
been used in the past, but, as shown in Book 1 of thc series, fiber optics will be
. .
employed in the future with the optical fiber uncoiling from the r m m k a s Ltflies:
A maximum missile range 11m1tis imposed by the fiber optics concept because of
the limited amount of cable that can bc carricd. In either case, the resolution enhances
as the missile approaches the target, reducing the errors in sensing the relative po-
sition of the target with respect to the missilc.

Environment sensing guidancelcorrelation matching. T h c follow-

ing discussion is based on Heaston and Smoots [19831. In environment-sensing
guidance, a PGM, while in flight, obtains information on its own absolute position
from an external source other than the launcher (fire-control equipment) or the
target. The PGM then uses this update of its position to adjust its flight path, if
necessary, to hit a preselected target. Inertial guidance is generally used to control
the missile between updates. In order to accon~plishenvironment sensing. the clec-
tromagnetic spectrum is used in one Lvay or another. One approach is to have an
onboard star (celestial) sensor which is used for a navigation update. This has gen-
erally been associated with exoatmospheric missiles and has been too expensive for
incorporation into a tactical PGIM. However, continued research in this area prom-
ises to make such a system affordable in the future. A related technique would be
to use a satellite system such as NAVSTAR-GPS for a position update. A more
popular and potentially less costly meshod is to have some type of map stored within
the PGM that is made during prior reconnaissance. This reference may be on film
o r digitized (converted into an electronic signal) for storage in a computer and ease
of comparison with real-time data obtained during the missile's tlight. Because of
the large amount of information in the reference maps, a very large computer storage
capacity is required for digital storage. Wlth a radar map and a radar sensor, a
periodic comparison of reference scenes can be used to determine missile position
during flight. This approach is called radar area correlation (RAC or RADAC) or
radar area guidance (RADAG), and when applied in a passive mode at M M W fre-
quencies is called microwave radiometry (MICRAD). RADAG is being employed for
terminal guidance in the PERSHING I1 missile.
Optical photoslmaps may also be employed as position references. They are
compared to scenes obtained during a missile's flight tb update the inertial guidance
system or to provide terminal guidance. One system using this approach is known
as the digital scene matching area torrelator (DSMAC), and is intended for use in cruise
390 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

missiles. Another variation on this theme is TERCOM which uses radar to measure
the contour of the land over which the system is flying and make a comparison
with stored contour data. This concept is used in the cruise missile. Generally,
environment-sensing guidance is used for systems with a range greater than 300
km, where precise terminal guidance is required and an accurate midcourse update
is needed to assure the desired CEP. Otherwise, the added cost and complexity
cannot usually be justified. One approach to autonomous target acquisition that is
possible against fixed tactical targets is image correlation or map matchitfg (referred
to as matcher/correlator guidance), as mentioned earlier. As a result of prior re-
connaissance, a map of the target area is made and processed to mark targets. A
version of this map is then stored onboard the missile in a computer. As the missile
flies along, it uses a sensor similar to the one used to generate the map to take a
live image to compare against the stored image. If an exact comparison is made,
the missile can fix its position. Four error sources must be considered in designing
matcher/correlation systems: geoketrical distortions, systematic intensity changes,
quantization errors, and possible enemy jamming. Geometrical distortions, in turn,
result from four causes: synchronization, rotation, scale factor, and perspective.
These difficulties have been overcome sufficiently to be used in the cruise missile
as DSMAC and TERCOM and in the PERSHING I1 missile as RADAG. Success
with matching/correlation and advances in technology are being used to develop
imaging IR, another popular guidance concept. In this case, instead of having a
stored map, the missile has a built-in algorithm for feature extraction that xvill permit
target recognition and autonomous acquisition. There is intense activity in this area
for application to future missile-guidance systems. Map-matching guidance (see
Chapter 5 for details) refcrs to the use of radarscope film previously obtained by a
rcconnaissance flight over the terrain of the route in question. This type of fill11 is
used to guide an aircraft or missile by allowmg the missile through proper command
generation to align itself with radar echoes received during flight from the ground
below.

Example 6-14: STANDARD Missile-2 upgrade program. Even after

the initial version of the SM-2 went into production, the increasing threat of high-
speed, high-altitude, antiship missiles launched from aircraft led to considering ways
of extcnding the SM-2's guidance system ability to counter such threats. Exploiting
recent advances in digital processing techniques a t the time, the SM-2 guidance
section was provided with a fast Fourier transform digital signal proccssor, which
was functionally cquivalcnt to a set of contiguous analog Doppler filters, each having
a small bandwidth. With such processors the goal was to enhance acquisition 2nd
tracking of returns from targets in thc prcsencc of obscuring jamming noise. Im-
provcmcnts to the signal processing wcrc accompanied by incrcased n~issilcpro-
pulsion to provide thc kinematic capability for successful high-altitude intercepts.
Changes were then required in thc radome to offsct thc effects of increased acro-
dynamic heating. Rccent studies concerning the STANDARD missile involved the
feasibility of multiple-guidance modes (Mitre and McDonald. 19811.
 Sec. 6.6 Single-Mode, DuaCMode, and Multimode Guidance 391

Example 6-15: Multlmodelmultiband HOJ system. Following Gul-

ick ct al. [l0871, although Talos, because of its long-range capabilities, was well
suitcd as a weapon to engage standoffjamrners or to force them to remain at grcat
distance, there rerrldined a guidance problem. When jammers, from long ranges.
.
iammcd the fleet's surveillance and fire control radars to the extent that these were
unable to provide good information about the location of the jammer, it became
impossible to program the midco~irseguidance to put the missile in close enough
proximity to the jamming aircraft for reliable semiactive homing. The primary
objective for the common aperture antenna with multimodc multiband HOJ homing
system was to render the missile capable of homing on jammers in S, C, and X
bands. If the nlissilc could home on one of the jammers, the midcourse guidance
requirements could be relaxed. All of the semiactive and on-frequency HOJ capa-
bilities of the monopulse homing system presented in Section 6.4.2 were to be
retained. Another less critical objective centered around providing the missile with
the ability to home on radars operating in those bands. The last objective was to
make the homing system compatible with exist~ngTalos missiles and to keep to a
minimum the degree of retrofitting that would be required. Figure 6-47 shows a
simpllficd block diagram ofthe homing system. The basic system was the semiactive
m o n o p ~ ~ l seeker.
sc For the most part, the n~odificatlonsconsisted of new, wideband
antennas and nlicrowave mixers, and the addition of a wideband local oscillator.
The original local oscillator Lvas used for seminctive homing. There were also added
to missile body motion (0) and guidance gain scalar to ad,ust for the sensitivity of
the interferometer to wavelength (frequency). The concept behind the multlband
HOJ design was relatively simple. Basically, if an intermittent signal such as a
blinking ECM or pulse radar excited the narrow Doppler filters of the semiactive
system at a sufficiently high rate, the output of the filters would be uninterrupted
CW signals that could provide excellent angle information. T o make certain that
the target signal would be able to excite the Doppler filters without necessitating
additional target recognition, acquisition, and automatic frequency control tracking
circuits, the microwave local oscillator was swept at an appropriate rate over the
RF band of interest. The result was a wideband seeker. the bandwidth of which

-System modificationsladditions
- for multiband HOJ
Original monopulse seeker Figure 6-47 Talos MultimodeiMulti-
band HOJ System (The multiband HOJ
system was basically an expansion of the
semiactive monopulse homing system.
The microwave portions of the original
system were changed to provide the de-
sired wideband operation. Frequency se-
-local oscillator signal Iectlon (typically 30 or 200 megahertz
bandwidth) was by digital message prior
to launch Convent~onalsemiactive horn-
band lng could be activated in fllght.) (0 1982
1 HOJ I 1 1 by>ohnr Hopkins APL Technical Digest)
 392 Guidance Processing 6

was determined by the extent of the local oscillator sweep. This width was generally
either 30 or 200 MHz. When the selected band contained multiple signals, guidance
favored the strongest signal. A digital message was sent to the missile to tell it which
RF frequency to select for the multiband HOJ operation. It was possible to initiate
semiactive homing i n flight, if desired, in the same manner as for a conventional
antiair engagement. Based on the assumption that the multiband HOJ feature would
be employed in cases where the target range was unknown, the missile would flv
by design at a cruise altitude to conserve fuel until seeker logic initiated hominp,
Homing always started at this altitude. For those cases in which a radar target (on
land or ship) at long range (over the horizon) and of known location was to be
engaged, a midcourse trajectory employing a terminal dive was used. Although
flight hardware was fabricated, the multimode/multiband HOJ system never camc
to be flight tested. In 1965, however, flight tests were successfully conducted against
radar targets with Talos missiles using a guidance concept identical to that of the
multiband HOJ system.

6.7 DEFENSE AND OFFENSE SYSTEMS

6.7.1 Performance Parameters

Description o f a SAM intercept o f an ASM. SAM systems, composed

of several radar systcms and high-velocity interceptor missiles, prevent key targets
(defended site) from being destroyed by short-range, high-velocity ASM. When an
ASM flies through enemy defenses employing SAM, either the ASM reaches its
target or the SAM intercepts the ASM. An unopposed ASM flight typically starts
- -

with launch a t maximum range and proceeds o n a preplanned flight profile until
the target is reached. For an SAM to intercept the ASM, a sequence of defensive
phascs must happen prior to the ASM arriving at its target. T o establish whether
an intercept attempt would be successful. various interactions between offensive and
defensive elemcnts and among defensive elements themselves must be analyzed
[Kostreba ct a]., 1984).

Defense considerations. Figure 6-48a depicts thrcc basic dcfense phases

relating to an ASM trajectory along which the missile is moving towards slx SAM
sites located conccntrically around a target. As shown in the figure, the three con-
secutive phascs arc acquisition, tracking, and SAM launch and intercept. ~cquisition
is accomplished with radars that scan large volumes of airspace and detcct and
determine the dircction of the approaching ASM. Having established directions, the
tracking radar is activated. The latter is characterized by a narrow radiating beam
and provides detailed information to be used in navigating an SAM to intercept the
ASM. When thc tracking radar has determincd the required information, the SAM
intcrccpt missilc is launched. Each of these phases requires what is tcrmcd a delny
time, which is a parameter of the subsystem for that phase. Whcn the acquisition
radar detcrmincs dircction and approximate location of the ASM, an acquisition
Set. 6.7 Defense and OIfense Systems 393

delay time is rcquircd before the track radar can pinpoint thc ASM. After the tracker
pinpoints the ASM location, a tracking delay timc is required to determine infor-
mation necessary for SAM launch and navigation. Subsequent to its launch, the
SAM flies toward the ASM, t h e timc of flight depending on the rangc from ASM
and spccd of the SAM. The defense seeks to nlinimizc the sum of delay times and
to improve radar detection capabilities for earliest possible detection of the ASM
[Kostrcba ct a].. 19841.

Offensive considerations. From the offcnsivc standpoint, important

factors include ASM flight time, profile, and dctcctability. The time history of
altitude velocity, launch range, and angle of attack of the ASM define its trajectory.
Figure 6-48b shows hypothetical altitude versus range for ballistic, boost-glide, and
cruise trajectories, all of which can be used by an ASM. Figure 6-48c shows hy-
pothetical velocity profiles for those trajectories. As the figures illustrate, differing
trajectories are characterized by different average and terminal velocities that de-
termine thcir vulnerability to the SAM. For example, the average velocity of a
ballistic trajectory, in comparison to boost-glide, may be greater, thereby stressing
SAM system rcaction time [Kostreba et al., 19841.

Target coverage and missile survivability. Following the treatment

of Young and Cormier [1983], ASM and SSM systems are key elements of any
strategic arsenal for attacking a defense system. A wide variety of operational ob-
jectives can be met by having missiles of varying propulsion systems and aerody-
namic features that in turn allow numerous possible trajectories to be flown. Figure
6-48b illustrates several types of missile trajectories. The trajectories of cruise mis-
siles are usually characterized by low-altitutde, terrain-following profiles that max-
imize survivability or by high constant-altitude profiles that maximize missile range.
Rocket motorized missiles generally fly ballistic and semiballistic trajectories char-
acterized by high altitude and speed so as to minimize flight time and missile vul-
nerability to defenses. Once they are launched, these missiles will fly either in the
direction of the launch axis or off the launch axis, the latter corresponding to turning
flight. T h e off-axis trajectory often uses an over-the-shoulder profile like that de-
picted in Figure 6-48d.
Selecting candidate missile systems is based primarily on target coverage and
survivability, both of which are desired to be maximized. This is particularly true
in the case of selecting an ASM design and trajectory. However, these two design
goals may conflict with one another (that is, maximizing target coverage may not
allow survivability to be maximized), and in this case a trade-off must be sought.
A missile's target coverage with respect to a given altitude and launch direction is
measured in terms offootprint, which is the locus of points formed by the missile's
maximum range 360 deg in azimuth around the launch point. The maximum raqge
of a missile is a function of aerodynamic design, the propulsion system, and the
shape of the missile's trajectory. Given that the missile will encounter terminal
defenses, missile survivability is affected by its trajectory. Hence, survivability is
determined to a large extent by the missile's physical characteristics and by its tra-
 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

Allitudc

\ I \
Low~8llitudrCruise 9
Ground Rants from Target

Target Ground Range lo Target

Figure 6-48 (a) Hypothctical ASM Flyby Geotnctry for Target in SAM-llefended
Area (b) Hypothetical Missile Trajectories (c) Hypothetical Missile Velocity Profiles
(d) Hypothetical Off-Axis Trajectory "Over the Shoulder" (e) Hypothctical Missile
Footprints (1) Stand-off Launch o f ASMs (g) RCS vs. Aspect Angle (h) Stylized
Defended Area of a SAM Complex (Froin /Kosrrcha ef a / . , 1984; Y o u i q aiid Cormier,
198.51 upirk pc.rmissioiljroin SCS)
 Sec. 6.7 Defense and Oflense Systems

Hiph.Altitude Launch , Low.Altitudc Launch ,

Cronrangs ASM Cendid8teZ

Altitude
,----
* .'.
\
Radar
Crou
Swtion
(Square
Moten)
'150
\
- SAM Envelope 0- - 7
180
ASM Trajectorin

Tarnet Range
Aspect Angle (Dlpnerl

(G)

Oirwtion
of Attack

0 S A M Site

-
V ------
.... ..., .
,
ASM Candidate 1
ASM Candidata 2
ASM Candidate 3

I
Downmnngc (NM)

(H)
Figure 6-48 (Continued)
396 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

jectory through enemy defenses. The former include the inissile's radar cross section
(RCS) arid IR signature, both of which are functions of the aspect angle between
the ASM and SSM and the defense system. Aspect angle in turn depends on the
missile's trajectory (a,y, and + ) Additional trajectory characteristics that bear on
survivability are missile speed and altitude, where survivability generally increases
with speed. Low-altitude flight can increase survivability by exploiting terrain mask-
ing (using terrain features to shield the missile).
As previously mentioned, it is generally not possible to design a missile or
trajectory that maximizes both target coverage and survivability at the same time.
Assessing missile designs is made difficult by the numerous combinations of pro-
pulsion systems, aerodynamic designs, and trajectories. Another problem that is by
n o means trivial is that of calculating the data to evaluate three-dimensional flight,
a problem which takes on added complexity as one attempts to shape trajectories
to satisfy certain operational requirements. Given such complexity in modeling
three-dimensional flight coupled with the large number of trajectories and designs
that must be simulated to conduct a complete trade-off analysis, there is a tremen-
dous need for a versatile missile trajectory simulation.
,l4irsile ratlge is likely the missile performance parameter of greatest importance,
determining for the most part target coverage and defining the maximum standoff
range for the launching aircraft. The maximum standoff range figures significantly
in aircraft survivability. Thosc factors that affect missile rangc include missile
aerodynamic and propulsion dcsign and missile trajcctorics. It is rcquired to be able
to display missile rangc in all directions since niaIiy applications o f ASM involve
off-axis flight. Using a trajcctory analysis program that computes down-rangc and
cross-range cstirnates, it is possible to construct a ritissile foorpritlt, a diagram that
shows 360-dcg co\,erage based on missile rangc from a givcn altitude and launch
direction. Such missile footprints arc shown in Figurc 6-48c for t w o diffcrcnt inis-
silcs lau~lchcdfrom high and low altitudes, and can be used to dctcrmiric sensitivity
to both propulsion dcsign and flight trajcctory. Missile rangc also establishes launch-
ing aircraft standoff constraints. In an ideal situation, thc launching aircraft would
be able to attack a targct from thc outside of terminal dcfcnscs. Figure 6-48f depicts
a SAM cnvclopc that shows how an aircraft might attack a targct with a long-range
ASM, thus remaining outsidc thcsc defcnscs. .Idissile n t t i t ~ r d edctcrmines the effective
arca prcscntcd to the SAM early xvarning or targct tracking radar. The survivability
of a n ASM flight is going to bc Iargcly affectcd by tiiissilr spczcd. Thc greatcr the
~nissilc'sspccd \%.it11which i t flies. thc greater thc strcss is placcd 011 the SAM dcfcnsc
systcnt [Young and Cormicr. 1'3851.
Bcsidcs velocities and trajcctorics, I<CS is another important factor, being the
signaturc a n objcct prcsents whcn a radar's transmitted cncrgy reflects from the
objcct to a rcccivcr, in this case at the transmitting radar. RCS thcrcforc detcrmincs
thc radar's ability to dctcct the ASM. Thc larger the RCS of an objcct, thc casicr
and carlicr it can bc dctcctcd. Figurc 6-48g shows hypothetical ASM IICS data as
a function of aspcct anglc. Whcn an ASM is flying dircctly at a radar, the azimutll
anglc is zcro, and thc surfacc arca of the ASM that will rcflcct cncrgy is rclativcly
small. The rcsulcing signaturc is thcrcforc also typically small. If the ASM is broad-
Sec. 6.7 Defense and Offense Systems 397

side of the radar (90-dcg azimuth), the larger surface arca will result in a larger
signature. Offcnsivcly, it is dcsircd to find an ASM t h n t will get to its target quickly
(high velocity) and with short detection ranges (small IlCS, little broadside exposure
if possible). Speed trajcctory, aspect angle, and liCS function of angle arc the key
offensive elements, and these must be traded off in any ASM design. Owing to the
dynamic nature of thcse factors for an ASM, it is not easily estimated which ASM
candidatc yields to the SAM the smallest dcfcndcd arca. The complexity of the
situation is made evident in Figure 6-48b. For cxaniplc, consider an arc that centers
on the SAM site and cuts a t a constant distance t h r o u ~ hthe three typical trajectories.
At this distancc from the SAM, each profile has a diffcrcnt aspect angle and therefore
prcscnts a diffcrcnt RCS. Consequently, one candidatc may have been detected while
the othcr has not. Morcovcr, cach candidate is moving at a different velocity and
different trajcctory, so thc timc to target will not be the same. A change in ASM
position changes the azimuth angle relative to each radar, entailing a change in RCS
observed by cach radar. T o accommodate thcse changes, calculations must be per-
formed for successive incremcnrs of time, each on thc order of a second. For each
timc incrcment, the relativc positions arc determined and it then becomes neccssary
to detcrniine whether the radar can detect the ASM. This action r e a ~ ~ i r cseverals
steps. The sequence for a given SAM site is: (1) the acquisition radar must detect
the ASM; (7) after the acquisition delay time, the ASM is handed over to the tracking
radar; (3) thc tracking radar mccrs its delay time: and (4) an SAM is launched [Kos-
treba et al., 19841.

6.7.2 Low-AltitudeAir Defense Systems

The discussions here are based on two excellent articles [Fossier, 1984, 19881, in
which it was noted that the first guidance systems designed for low-altitude air
defense suffered serious technical problems. Some of these involved target detection
in a cluttered environment, lvhile others had to do with applying the technology
of the day to equipment that had to be capable of operating in the severe missile
environment.

Homing problems. As early as 1950, active continuous-wave (CW) radar

was used on ex~erimentalmissiles. While this form of active radar was not to endure
much longer thereafter, offshoots such as semiactive C W radar and semiactive and
active pulse-Doppler radars would soon pervade antiaircraft missile systems. O n e
of the problems encountered in designing C W radar has to do with aircraft, such
as the Kamikaze, that would typically attack from low-altitude flight. The fraction
of radar energy directed from a missile toward an aircraft target that actually reaches
the target and is reflected is very small. Moreover, the fraction of reflected energy
that is intercepted by the missile antenna as a signal is smaller still. The missile, in
addition to receiving signals from the target, is receiving signals that are reflected
from the ground or sea, which reflects a much larger signal than an aircraft, as
shown in Figure 6-49a. Without the ability to discern one from another, the small
target signal is hidden by the ground (or sea) clutter. A C W radar transmits a pure
 A CLUTTER

EEOTHROUGH

FREOUENCY
'0 -
Vm
A
10 lo. -
V,
A
lo .- -
2VT+V,
A A

-
A
CLOSING SPEED

(B)
ANTENNA TRANSMITTER AMPLITUDE

RECEIVER

(C)

AMPLITUDE

I
BIRDIES

FREOUENCY

Figure 6-49 (a) Signals Received by

CW Homing Missile (b) Missile Signals:
.a .::' HORIZONTAL POLARIZATION Amplitude vs. Frequency (c) Fecdthrougli
7
.. I'roblcm in CW Radars (d) Noise Side-
........ . .
z*
e c - 8 bands in Ilopplcr Radar (e) "Birdies" ill
:s .5
.. . Doppler Radar (0 Low-Altitude Gcome-
....... VERTICAL
try (g) Reflection Coefficient over Smooth
.3 POLARIZATION Sea (A = 3 cm)(h) llcflection Coefficients
.1 over Land,' Vertical Polarization (A = 3
I cm) (i) Fcedthrough Nulling Block Dia-
gram (i) Noise Degeneration Block Dia-
0 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 6 e 1 0 -grarii (k) Inverse Moriopulse Ilecciver
GRAZING ANGLE (DEGREESI (From [Forsirr, 1984 & 1988/, 0 1984 G- 1988
(G) AIAA)
 1

REFL 6
REFL COEF
COEF

GRAZING ANGLE IDEG I GRAZING ANGLE

0 R Y . S L l G H l L Y ROLLING WITH GRASS
SMALL. DRY SAND HILLOCKS I TO 18 IN HIGH

(H)
XMlT
ANTENNA
TRANSMITTER

ANTENNA

MODULATOR
I

REFERENCE

REF

ANTENNA
Figure 6-49 (Continued)
400 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

tone o f microwave energy. By reason of the well-known Doppler effect, reflections

from targets in its beam will be altered in frequency. The problem as far as the
missile is concerned is fundamentally one of selecting the frequency.corresponding
to the moving aircraft target and spectrally rejecting the frequency that corresponds
to the stationary ground, as shown in Figure 6-49b. The problem is made difficult
in one respect by the fact that the Doppler shift is only about 20 Hz/ft/sec of relative
velocity at a radiated frequency of 10 GHz, which is not a very large shift at all.
The desired frequency resolution for separating the target signal from the interfer-
ence is about lo3 Hz (50 ftlsec). Implementing such a narrowband filter was realized
by beating the received signal down to video frequencies, using- a sample o f the
transmitted signal as a reference for the incoming signal. By heterodyning various
parts of the spectrum sequentially into a highly selective fixed-frequency 1 KHz
wide filter, using a variable frequency oscillator as the mixer reference, this spectrum
could be analyzed automatically. O n e of the other two remaining significant prob-
lems dealt with what is known as feedthrough, as shown in Figure 6-49c. Even as
a C W radar is transmitting, it is simultaneously trying to listen for a received signal
that is approximately 10-l6 of the transmitted signal. The problem is one of ensuring
that none of the transmitted power is leaked into the receiver [Fossier, 19841.
While pulse radars shut bff their receivers when their transmitters are on, C W
radars transmit continuousl~.As a result. the receivers of C W radars must detect
the small target signal in the presence of leakage from the transmitter. which can
often be significantly many orders of magnitude larger. Unlike the target signal,
this fecdthrough has no Doppler shift, but its large magnitude can easily saturate
the reccivcr. In addition to thc feedthrough problem, the radar must cope with the
problem of noise. N o micro\x,ave oscillator gcncrates a perfect sinc wave, and dc-
viations thcrcfore may be thought of as frequency sidebands on the dcsircd pure
tone. When feedthrough or cluttcr signals arc prcscnt they will carry thesc sidebands,
which may appear in thc Doppler spectruin and, hence, compcte with the target
signal (Figure 6-49d) [Fossicr, 19881. The C W radar is thercforc continually at-
.
tempting to minimize noisc in the transmitter and in receiver oscillators used to
<,

heterodyne (or convert) the receivcd signal down to intermediate frequencics. The
other main problcn~,which is somewhat similar in nature to the problem of feed-
through, concerns thc magnitude of the cluttcr rcturn. Unless the transmittcd signal
is a pure tone, it will have frcqucncy sidebands that will tl~odulatethe large clutter
signal, resulting in components a t frequencics ~vithinthe rcceivcr bandwidth. Mod-
ulations at a frcquency rqual to thc diffcrencc in frcqucncy between the targct and
cluttcr llopplcr frequencics will nlodulatc thc cluttcr frequcncy to crcatc a sideband
a t a frcqucncy that is identical to thc dcsircd targct signal. Given thc potentially high
ratio (10') of cluttcr powcr to the dcsircd targct signal powcr, the noisc o n tllc
transmittcd signal must be kcpt to a tninimum [Fossier, 19841. Still another problem
can bc labeled birdi1.s. Thcsc arc coherent unwanted signals (that is, having a sinu-
soidal waveform) that may be introduccd by harmonics of powcr supplies, by mi-
crophonies arising from rcsonant n~cchanicalclcrnolts, or as "beat" frcqucncics
resulting from mixing proccsscs (Figure 0-4%). T h c radar may rllistakc thesc birdies
for raigrrs ii'thcy srv ir, the parts ofthc Onpplcr spcawm olintcresr 2nd arc dctc.tcd,
Since they arc i.i,trrru.silygmrrattd, rhr:y are abvi~ttttyo-f no value cs rnissiir guiit-
sncc, Fundamcn~timplcmer~tarioixprobic.m?tbq3n EQ k c -~nderst~>;sd in tki.IB#k.,
but the stat< oi'rfzc art in hardware w35 not cnnducivc to sarlsfactory scrlucinni. rite
microwave xnutccr; of L!SS t i m e \fft'rc ptinlzrily mxgnctrom 2nd wtrc guitc r ~ ~ l y
(ahbough pcxl'zctiy sacisf;rcrvrp ibr c,nvcnriani( nor\cof:tront pulse z-gdsr i?prratiottf,
A h 4 rhc :\rc~isi~>g
v~cuutn rubes a t;zih hlc *t that r h r wcr: Inre9 {and miirophtmic)
{Fossjcr, t988\,

Atr dg.f:enw horn{- ~3;sC:em. C3i1c nfrhc adv;lnriti;cs c3f 2ii active ~ccker
is is aabiiity t~ operate atzt~tr~rltuusly stscic~u<n< rr3 missib Launch. T:lbing 8 scrrG-
active apprw-:%r w g r rkc trsufr o f t h r &i%culry uf achic+*inl:F!W ncecsrrary isoiatiun
~ f i R ~r~cciver
t frarrr ehPtrznsmirter in an active C'W. In this apprcrd2, <I-e?mnsmittcr
remainp, a t rhz latrwsih point drrd urdf the reeeitw i s &3wn ifi the rnissik &:sit<,
iY841. (5rtl: of the e d y cxampirs wC a semiacrivt: air defcnsc system is che Sgerry
Spsrrow f tvitfz radar beam-rider ~ , , u i t l % ~ c5~tlichr, t-sczrnc rhe Nay's firsr opera-
ticma1 missilc. The k30ugbs S P ~ Y Tit.~is~equipped Y~ svtih active p f s e r d a r g~~idancc.
In the R;ryrk:h~(rnSparrow l11!, rhe iransrni~terwas rcmovt?! fcon~rhc missik avid IcIt
i . ~the lausrchitrg aiuctaft. 5 scparacirrg
~ the xrantimitccr !'rum the tcccb:cr %y DI?~LS
riteher t t ~ a r iinches (and rcnr~vingcasnnlon sc-crions uf suave.g~&de rhritugh which
i;.;>tl\ r;anirnitrrd 2nd recctwd signah must f i ~ w ) the
1 , fte&krt.itgh and ~ l r s ~ c i x t d
noise prnbicms \were rcdured b-9 ,>I-dtrsvf ?aaFxi~crdd-This inrfe:\sz.sdthe ma::i&um
irzmsmirtzr p0:ver ict~.lthat cwld be eo%aarecI in thc activr radar fa Prvr vatrr;? by
c C ~ d e rr&r~?rgnitvdr,
5 a:d, c~:untbincd, wi& ~1x6rf~u.ihlarger rfitejfna in the r?rrrafs
uficrl ro iltunrinare thc ~z.rger.pn?vidc'd s<::ticitr-it :r;ickir.,g r;?nge t-& perrrric t-<omirrg
ali the *my at Chu required flight ratrgcs. T'hc Sparrow ifi was finally seiccteF! ~ D T
apnazinn. Egen mot? irrxyor:ant ck2zr i t s iew-ttlriradt cap;ikiis<y, st: WG ns h~rrting,
missile titar worked. I t was about Chis time, nvtcd Fn~sim114E%j, rlur. a rrcw o p
y~rnmitya r s c en xdvawi- rkc siste 0F the at1 in ftzwalcic~~rr$r air d~frtxse.'The- U,S.
Army urmred ro ~ k ~ e 1 the~technuhgy
p :irnr~dcdtiz prv~vidca bbactle6c$d ShM $0
Frotecr fri.ier,dly troops fri.o.rsnacki by tawflyi~gaiicraft, From rtris cfcsitc mas born
PrcJS~sc Hawk,. trr a sympfisiuni ijn lo.#-aitirttde gtlidmce i*early IYSJ, it was s h o w
t30w citlt~er2nd image (or mdtipath) piufi3t~m.ts!r cautd be nvexcomc wick 2 scmirr-tive
C T ndar harniag missllc
hcct./~dir,.g rct Fussrer I,iY8$], $he pmbiem of $e&nt;moving xarge%$tiiddctfi by
grou:~dsltret~~ wufd be uniqrrriy solved wich C W radar i r ~the F.i1tz-.)rstrssretn. Evea
when i b i s ~ $ p5 t o ~ ~ x eh~>vet.er,
d~ i f did nat allay fears &at the ef%kton g~rldance
zcrcurxy of radar rrflettiurts f c ~ t ~chs t . ract?~,:rrmed rheimagr or muf+&t:k~roble#,
would be severe tlno~rghtto clurc the rrtissileti; k m t . .;tsrnrtvhere br:.vxcet~zhrs tlrrger
and its intrige &and thus consistet3dy collide wirh the grouad beqepr *ctachirjg chc
targtt {see Figwe 6-49Q. At t h r tiwe thc prohiem was beijrg tmestChed, the design
team af rhe Hawk sysrcn lcamtd that hurizantn~~y pdrrrhd microwa~t-e erwrgy can
reflect af~tlostccon1.plctc2y <cam i~ $mooch carti-, in chc Eo~wartlscktte~direninn ar
tire grazing angles of itrcerest, t&m incuc&si~g rhe likefihnad of rtxc c-scrious image
402 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

problem that was predicted. The large amount of attenuation of vertically polarized
energy (see Figures 6-49g and 6-49h) seemed to indicate that the problem could
be solved if the grazing angle could be controlled. From the ensuing analysis, it was
determined that launching at elevation angles in the range of 15-20 deg accomplished
several objectives: (I) it keeps the reflection coefficient, which is simply the fraction
of the incident energy reflecting in the forward scatter direction, below 0.5 in every
instance, resulting in an average pointing direction of the antenna at the real target
rather than the image and ensuring that the magnitude of the disturbance is well
bounded; (2) it holds the frequency of the disturbance well above the autopilot
bandwidth, so that the bounded disturbance established previously does not to a
large degree affect the homing trajectory and therefore substantiates the simplifying
assumptions used in the analysis; and (3) it enhances the aerodynamic range per-
formance of the missile to some extent because the reduction in air density at higher
altitudes more than compensates for the longer path to the target. T h e systems
analysis approach that was adopted in the design of the Hawk system was a big
factor in ensuring the development of a successful missile system, and brought
attention to the contribution that system analysis can offer in the solution of practical
problems. The hardware design conformed to the theory that governed the problem
at hand, and the analysis was subsequently validated in every respect through the
use of actual flight tests. This same approach is still adopted even now in the de-
velopment of all low-altitude homing missiles.
As mentioned earlier, if a missile launched against a low-flying aircraft is to
be successful. the aircraft must first have been detected and tracked t o maintain
illumination during missile flight for semiactive homing. This brought into focus
once again the problems of an active Doppler radar. It was clear that success de-
pended on the ability to separate the transmit and receiver functions (as done in
semiactive missiles) as much as possible. The result of such effort was two-dish
radar, which demonstrated the feasibility of detecting and tracking targets in clutter
with an active ground-based C W radar. The radar design was modified in the de-
velopment program to have two four-foot-diameter dishes side by side on a common
pedestal, the configuration that is still used today. The transmitter selected for the
tactical radar was a 200 W magnetron stabilized by an external cavity. In addition
to the illuminator, a continuously rotating CW acquisition radar was designed with
similar electronics but using two eight-foot-long antennas mounted above each
other. This radar continuously scanned the horizon, providing the initial acquisition
of targets in clutter necdcd to start the engagement process. The preceding solution
of separating transmitting and rccciving functions with separate antennas ~vhich
made the Hawk successful is not suited to an aircraft radar because of the limited
frontal area available in high-speed military aircraft. Fundamental solutions \t7crc
necdcd to all of the original Lark radar problems, especially for the problem of
fecdthrough. If a single antenna is to be used, the amount of transmitter power that
leaks into thc receiver must be diminished considerably. Using the newly available
ferrite device, a system was developed called fecdthrough nulling (Banks, 19751 that
purposciy leaks transmitter powcr into the receiver under the control of fcrritc
Sec. 6.7 Defense and Oflense Systems 403

rotators, as shown in Figure 6-49i. In principle, the ferrircs were controlled to leak
transmitter powcr of the correct an~plitudeand phase to balance out thc unwanted
power that inevitably leaked in. Thus, by nulling techniques, using phasc detectors
to sense the remaining feedthrough, the fccdthrough could be reduced to thc extent
of the gain in thc loop [Fossier, 1988).
The close-out or stop frequency of thc fcedthrough nulling loop had to be
kept bclow the Doppler band of interest to avoid cancelling out target signals.
Transmitter noise in the Doppler frequency band in the severe vibration and acoustic
environment of an aircraft noise rcmaincd a difficult problem. In one solution that
was developed, noise cancellation techniques were employed, based on fecdback
principles. T o achieve stabilization of the transmitter, one simply modulated the
output of the klystron master oscillator to null out the inadvertent modulation (Fig-
ure 6-49j). Operating in a manner similar to that of feedthrough nulling, the re-
sultant modulation was sensed as in-phase and quadrature imbalances in a microwave
bridge, with a mechanically-tuned cavity serving as the stable reference. Although
further airborne C W radar work ended not too long after this, the techniques of
feedthrough nulling and noise cancellation provided a way to build a robust, high-
power version of the Hawk tracking radar. As mentioned in Fossier [1988], the
attractions of C W radar had been recognized bv Great Britain, and a number of
critical components were being developed by their laboratories. The development
of a high-power illuminator (HPI), as the radar came to be known, came not long
after a 2-kW low-noise two-cavity klystron was developed by Ferranti. Although
subsequently replaced in the operational design, it nonetheless allowed the HPI to
be successfully developed and deployed in 1962. replacing the original low-power
illuminators in Hawk systems.

Further missile developments. The clutter rejection capability of the

original Sparrow (and Hawk) design was about 40 dB and was limited by the dy-
namic range of the video amplifier that contained the entire Doppler spectrum,
including both target signal and clutter. In several Hawk flight tescs over lava beds
in 1963, the lava's high reflectivity generated clutter sufficiently high to prevent the
missile seeker from detection of the target. As noted in Fossier 119881, a simple
modification was undertaken that satisfied the Hawk requirements nicely. Frequency
shaping was added to the missile video amplifier to attenuate frequencies at which
clutter could occur (determined by the maximum velocity of missile, which was
accurately known). This reduced missile sensitivity for tail attacks, where it is not
needed, and optimized the clutter rejection for forward-hemisphere attacks, where
it is needed. By going to this technique, an effective clutter rejection of about 60
dB was achieved, which proved sufficient to errn nit successful flighrs (although at
reduced performance) under these severe conditions.
In the early 1960s, a different receiver architecture was conceived that greatly
increased the clutter-rejection performance of the missile receivers while also elim-
inating the ECM vulnerability. The resulting inverse monopulse receiver utilized
the newly available crystal filters to accomplish inverse monopulse, incurring little
 increase in carnplexity compared with the conventional receiver. As shown in Figure
6-49k, a three-port monopulse antenna was employed with the outputs representirlg
the sum beam and the two-difference beams (pitch and yaw) that determine the
txget lacations in rectangular coordinates. FoIIov~ingenough fixed-gain amplift-
cation ta tstabCisk noise figure, each output went through a n identical I-kHz-wide
fitet at the 1F frequency. Tlzis filter eIiminated interfering signals (such as clutte~
ar jammer modulation) that were not within 1 kHz of the desired target signal,
FoUowing the filrer, the difference chantlels were intenriona2fy modufa ted onto the
sum sighal (as happens in conical scanning] to allaw amplificarion and processing.
Since this happens at a frequency much higher than 1 kHz, vulnerability to an~pli-
tude-modulated jamming is eliminated because AM at the difference-channel mod-
ulation frequency is completely removed by the narrowband crystal filters before
the modulation process is employed, This design led to the Improved Hawk missile
prosram and. was Lam incorporated into Sparxow as well {Fossier, 19881.
The 1970s uqtnessed the state of ~ h art
r moviflg away firom CW radar to pulse
Doppler [with rnonop~2seangle tracking). As indicated earlier, pulsed Doppler was
essentially left to airborne radars such as those for the F-4, F-14, and F-15 aircraft,
which only had space for a single antenna. Tbese pulse Doppler radars ernploy the
Cundamental tcch~~iques dcveldped for CW radars to reject clutte'c, minimizing the
problems by openltlg their receiver anly when the transrnitrer i s turned off. How-
ever, this turning on and off on the part of rhe transmitter several thousand times
per second has made ~t more difficult to achieve low-noise performance. Even with
the noise cancellation techniques pioneered in the HPI, transmitter noise is still a
limiting factor for some appGcatibns. The application of stealth technology r o 2 i ~
a7ebjc)cs ma)' ott2r ;( ~ I C Wtcason T O US C W raiiai. Dt-cccrint; and rracking sccalth
vehiclcs at 10s aititudt will rcquirc near-perfect cluttcr rejcctiot~,ivhich may bc best
achieved in ground-based radars with the supcrstability obtainable \virh two-dish
CW radars and semiacrive missiles. Although the popularity of pulse Doppler radars
and missiles is increasing, CW remains widely adopted. Accordirjg ro Alliatiotz M,'eek
arjd Spare Terhnol~gymagazine, rhe Soviet SA-6 air defense system cmploys CW
radar homing miss'ilcs. The SA-6 has been deployed in the V.S.S.R. since the 1960s
and was exported to client states after the Mideast War of 1967.

6.8 FUTURE CIUIDAPfCE PROCESSING

Sanlc o l the ncwer dcsign trends conccrnirlg srrzart PGM includc high-pol~rrcd
transmitters, image-based sigrral processing and ir>tclligcnt sensors, srnall inertial
platforms, high cjcctrorlic packaging dcnsitv, improved cornmar~dlink$, and gvjd-
ante-aidcd fusing. Those- arcas in which ricrc is very little change in the desig13
methodologies irtclude acrodvnarnics, srrurturcs, propulsion, radomes, and war-
head. This, howcvcr, i s gcnc;a))ytrue of all flight vehicles, and not necessarily of
PGM only. Signat processing rrchno\ogy will figure cvcn morc prominently in the
Ssc. 6.8 Future Guidance Processing 405

future of guidance processing as autonomous weapons will be requited to satisfy

expected mission requirements. Current missile-guidance functions such as detec-
tion and tracking of point targets have already been successfully developed. Future
system requirements based on accurately resolving the location and physical struc-
ture of targets will require the development of new signal processors, which will
also have to decide the appropriate action to take in accordance with target iden-
tification. For example, the approach presented in Book 4 of the scries has made
smart sensing and guidance possible, especially in applications that are able to take
advantage of much of the research conducred in the area of image processing. The
result is the use of intelligent knowledge-based systems techniques to identify to
the missile the most vulnerable part of the target. Thc capability to do this resides
in software that is loaded onto the missile's processors. The use of current and future
missile radars and IR seekers will be enhanced by advances in autonomous target
recognition algorithm development (see Figure 6-46b). Advances in patallel digital
signal processing will play a significant role in the development of more optimal
and robust approaches based on neural networks and multiple spatial resolution.
What may be the ultimate system for missile signal processing will have multiple
sensors integrated via sensor fusion techniques based on the principles of artificial
-
intellieence. The system architecture design " will likely reflect to some extent the
organization of the brain, and algorithms for target recognition based on neural
networks will probably be the most natural and robust approach. In addition to
radar sensor imaging, IR sensors will also be used. One approach that is applicable
to image detection and segmentation, and which is based on a model of the human
vision system. is 1 suboptimal irnlge pmceccing architecture called the multireso-
lution spatial integration (MRSI) processing developed by Johns Hopkins Applied
~ h y s i c s ~ ~ a b o r aThis
t o ~ ~can
. b i developed for different antiship missile concepts
(that is, completely autonomous seekers or man-aided image processing). MRSI
could perform target cueing, rhus relieving the human image interpreter from having
to search visually over a wide FOV. As neural-network-based recognition schemes
become increasingly common, MRSI processing in combination therewith will be-
come a missile signal processor that hHs a significant number of features of human
intelligence [Boone and Steinberg, 19881.

6.8.1 Areas for Technological Advances in Signal

Processing

This treatment is based on the excellent report submitted to GACIAC by Heaston

and Smoots [1983]. AS discussed earlier, all PGM applications will benefit from
increased microprocessor capacity and the development of sophisticated target en-
gagement techniques. In addition to these areas, other areas that have begun and
will continue to be developed include detectors/sources, very high-speed integrated
circuits (VHSIC), charge-coupled devices (CCD), fiber optics, surface acoustic wave
(SAW) devices, integrated optical circuits (IOC), focal plane array (FPA) sensors,
and microgyros. In the area of detectors/sources, PGM applications require small,
406 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

lightweight, high-efficiency power sources. It is believed that the next decade will
witness increases in power output of two to three orders of magnitude. Currently,
there are also requirements for MMW sources and detectors. CCDs, which function
to move extremely small aggregated units of electrical charge from one fixed position
to another, will find major applications in PGM. Fiber optics is another very im-
portant area. Utilizing optical fibers that are small in size and weight, the guidance
of a PGM could be a situation in which an operator receives pictures of the target
area from the sensor and sends guidance signals t o the missile over the same fiber,
as shown in Example 6-8. It is almost certain that fiber optics will eventually be
used as data links within PGM and in their airborne and ground launcher support
equipment. SAW devices find use in delay lines, frequency filters, oscillators, am-
plifiers, memories, and programming circuits, and may be used in the launch plat-
form or target acquisition system of PGM. The use of I O C and optical circuit
miniaturization for signal processing and image generation in PGM could bring
their cost down while improving their performance. With FPA, attempts are being
made to couple the FPA output to a microprocessor with a sophisticated pattern
recognition algorithm to automatically recognize and identify targets.

Autonomous acquisition/image processing. A technology that is

well understood for many types of sensors has to do with automatic tracklng after
acquisition (lock-on). By using LOBL it is possible to simplify the guidance system.
The system in some cases may not be able to LOBL, although the conditions may
make LOAL relatively easy. Such may be the case, for example, if the target is in
the antenna beam and is the only target available in a clutter-free environment.
Certain radar-guided missiles are designed to opcrate in this mode. With autono-
mous acquisition, however, the LOAL procedure is more complex, generally re-
quiring a true arca/volume scarch, automatic target recognition, and acquisition.
The postlaunch autonomous acquisition is the most difficult mode of operation for
a PGM. Having been fixed into a general target area, the missile, upon entry to the
terminal phase, must search for, recognize,
- and select a target in the absence of any
operator assistance. Such a scenario is generally air to ground. Although autonomous
acquisition is generally associated with image processing, it may be implemented
for other types of signatures as well. ~ e n e r a l i m a processing
~e can be broken down
into five classes of techniqucs that are employed therein: (1) irnagc enhanccmcllt,
(2) scgmcntation, (3) featurc cxtraction, (4) featurc classification, and ( 5 ) correlation.
Image enhanccmcnt involves convcrting the input irnagc data into a form more
suitable for further processing. The processing operations for accomplishing this
goal may includc noisc elimination, geometric correction, spatial filtering, or am-
plitudc spectra modification, and may be pcrformcd either in the spatial domain or
in a numbcr of transform domains such as Fouricr, Haar, Hadamard, and so on.
Scgmcntation is conccrncd with isolating potential featurcs or areas of an image
from that which is considcrcd background. In particular, cdgc extraction is uscd to
isolate or dcfine objccts. Processing associated with edge cxtraction may be uscd to
enhance fcature boundaries, whilc thickcning or thinning operations may be cm-
Sec. 6.8 Future Guidance Processing 407

ployed that attempt to provide a continuous line describing the feature boundary.
Although edge extraction is generally a preparatory step for feature classification.
it is somctilnes also used to precede correlation steps wherein the binary feature
boundaries arc correlated instead of area correlations of pixel amplitudes.
In the process of feature extraction, characteristics of the segmented features
are determined. These may consist of areas, perimeters, area-to-perimeter ratios,
and other geometrically sensitive parameters. Texture is another type of character-
istic that may be used to describe image features. Still another type of characteristic
may be the entire segmented portion of the image, for situations in which template
matching is employed for feature classification. In feature classification, the extracted
features of segmented objects are matched to a set of known or desired features of
a target object in order to identify the type or class of object appearing in a scene.
In the case of a prestored target template, this consists of correlations of the seg-
mented object with the prestored target template. However, if geometrically derived
features are involved, feature classification may consist of a probability of match
score of the input object with prestored target feature profiles. Correlation has to
do with the mathematical correlation of a reference and input image or image seg-
ment to determine if there is a precise match or the best match for the relative
positions of the two images. Either picture amplitude or phase information, thresh-
old or binary image information, or picture edge information may be employed for
correlation. Bayesian statistics allow a scene-to-scene correlation to be made to
educate the seeker. In the case of midcourse or terminal guidance relying on map
matching, correlation can be performed on the picture as a whole, or with multiple
subareas. Correlation, when performed on segmented objects, is basically template
matching for feature classification. In order for any of the image processing tech-
niques discussed earlier to be used to their maximum potential, they must function
in both ideal weather and environmental conditions and in conditions in which the
target signatures are degraded.

6.8.2 Future Signal Processing for Missile Guidance

This section presents an example of future signal processing for missile guidance
based on state-of-the-art research being conducted at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics
Laboratory [Boone and Steinberg, 19881. The typical engagement scenario in an-
tisurface warfare, which is the focus of the treatment given here, is one in which
the missile confronts several surface combatants and must pick out a high-value
target from less important ones. Such a relatively small closed-set classification
problem, while it may intuitively be thought of as simple, is in reality difficult.
Because of signal degradations arising from both natural and man-made sources,
sophisticated seeker processing is required. For radar sensors, target motion and
aspect changes are unsteady. In the case of IIR sensors, signal degradation is brought
about by inherently low target contrast, which is a function of target thermal sig-
nature, and by atmospheric propagation loss, which increases with range. Figure
6-50a depicting a generic, advanced missile-guidance system, highlights the most
 Guidance Processfng Chap. 6

Engagement
planning
system

To
Preprocessor guidance
Class~fier
Sensor computer
Acquis~tion or image
suite
extractor matcher

Monopulse radar Nearest-neighbor

Synthetic apenure radar Bayesian
Neural networks
Infrared focal plane array
Multiresolution spatial integration
Fast ~ourie; transform
Primitive structural features

Range bin Range bin

(B)

Figure 6-50 (a) Signal Processing Subsystems f o r A d v a n c e d A n t i s h i p M i s s i l e Guidance (b)

T h e V a r i a t i o n of Radar-Ilange Profiles for I l u r a t i o n s o f (i) 100 m s a n d (ii) 16 s (c) I n f o r m a t i o n
Processing F l o w S h o w i n g R a n g e Profile, Feature E x t r a c t i o n , a n d N e u r a l N e t w o r k Architec-
t u r e (C 1988 by Johns Hopkills APL Technical Digrsr)
 Sec. 6.8 Future Guidance Processing

Neural network
Hidden layer

,1.00
7
"
.- 0.75
5 0.50
E
a 0.25
0

Harmonic number

decision
IN classesl

Figure 6-50 (Continued)

important signal processing subsystems thereof. As shown in the figure, the sensor
suits can be a radio-frequency imaging radar such as monopulse o r SAR, an IIR (or
optical) FPA, or some combination of the two. The preprocessor and the classifier
constitute other key subsystems, the former of which usually performs signal con-
ditioning and feature extraction or segmentation. Those subsystems that may be
classified as nonessential can also be part of the overall system that includes a post-
processor for decision integration and a physically separate engagement (or mission)
planning system that includes a mechanism for generating reference data for clas-
sification. The architectures most likely to be found are parallel for preprocessors,
sequential for classifiers, and symbolic for postprocessors. The two examples that
follow are representative of advanced signal and image processing algorithms being
developed, the first of which is a new technique in ship recognition now being
applied to monopulse radar-derived range profiles. The focus here is on neural-
network-based classification algorithms. The second example is in the field of EO
systems, and has to do with a multiresolution spatial integration technique for ex-
tended target detection and segmentation applicable to imaging IIR seekers.

Target recognition using neural-network-basedalgorithms. The

conventional (real-beam) monopulse radar used currently by antiship missile seekers
yields range profiles, or one-dimensional functions of target radar cross section
versus range. While inverse SAR can be used at longer ranges for stand-off ship
classification, its imagery varies to a large degree over successive looks, producing
410 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

various perspectives such as plan and side views. SAR or monopulse imaging mav
be used by future antiship missile seekers to generate ship images, which basicall\.
are plan views of the radar-scatterer distribution of the illuminated targets. which-
ever of these sensor options may be en~ployed,it is strongly believed that future
antiship missiles will have a definite need for target recognition. As a matter of
survivability, the total look time required for imaging and recognition is always
restricted to being on the order of the motion cycle of the targets. For reasons such
as the radical changes in missile-target geometry that occur during terminal en-
gagement, target signatures presented to a typical antiship missile will vary a great
deal. Thus, classifier performance must be robust, and the training of such classifiers
must include representative looks. Boone I19881 has developed a systematic meth-
odology for classifier training that incorporates various databases (both measured
and synthetic) and numerous feature extraction and classification algorithms, in-
cluding traditional (statistical) and neural-network-based algorithms.
When relying on radar-range profiles, there is considerable degradation of
classifiers at the broadside aspect or near-broadside, since range-only profiles (having
relatively low spatial resolution) will have few range cells on ship targets, particularly
at broadside. One way of determining sensitivity to target aspect is to train a given
classifier at a particular aspect and then test it within an angular sector spanning the
training point. Better performance translates into a larger angular sector over which
the probability of correct classification remains high (290%). The larger this angular
sector, the less data there will be to store in the missile-guidance computer memory
for real-time operation. Thus, increased classifier robustness versus aspect means
less training data and smaller computer memory needs. The ability to achieve greater
robustness may lie in employing neural networks. During times of signal acquisi-
tion, targets exhibit varying signatures. In the case of real-beam radars, there is
usually much less than a 1-sec time interval over which signatures must be collected
t o achieve an adequate SIN for classification ( 2 2 0 dB). However, over longer,
muitilook intervals ( > l o sec) required, for example, for decision integration, there
can be a significant variation of the range-profile structure, as shown in Figure 6-
50b. Although image frame times for SAR may be about 1 sec, target motion may
blur the detailed RCS structure of the desired targct. Moreover, look times for
inverse SAR requircd to capture the best reprcsentative image of a target can easily
exceed 10 sec. An effective classifier should bc able to deal with such variations in
targct signature for any conceivable seeker type within the appropriate look time,
without a large measure of pcrforrnancc degradation. The features, thcrcforc, se-
lected to enable classification (that is, the input to thc classificr) should alwrays be
separable in feature space to allow the output decision to bc made with a high dcgrce
of confidcncc.
A design goal to which considerable attention nccds to bc given is optimization
of classifier performance. The clcmcnts that combine to detcrminc performance are
thc spatial resolution of thc sensor, the fcaturcs cxtractcd from thc signatures, the
n~athernaticalstructurc of thc classifier, and the type of dccision-integration schell1e
uscd. When rclying on range-only profiles, pcrformancc vcrsus resolution is Par-
ticularly important ro targct aspect. For fcaturc extraction, onc gcncrally errlp]oYs
Sec. 6.8 Future Guidance Processing 411

Fourier harmonics of the range profile since they rcveal how rapidly the RCS of
the target varies and which spectral components of the radar are dominant. With
neural networks, important issues have to do with optimizing the network structure
in terms of the learning algorithm (for example, back propagation) and the number
of connections. Optimization with respect to the choice of a decision-integration
rule is desirable when dealing with long dwells on the intended target. A higher
level of confidence can be obtained by integrating sequential output decisions.
As described in Boone and Steinberg [1988], the neural network al*yorithm is
based on a metaphor of the human brain's capacity to process information (see [Roth
and Jenkins, 19881). While the subject of neural networks encompasses many op-
tions, one of those pursued by Rumelhart et al. (19861 focuses on the multilayer
perceptron, or back-propagation-based algorithm. Although such algorithms re-
quire longer times to train, the time to classify is relatively short, which can be an
important tactical advantage for a missile in a typical war-at-sea engagement, where
there may be little time to classify multiple targets. Figure 6-50c illustrates the
implementation of a multilayer perceptron via back propagation for the recognition
of ship radar signatures. After the ship signature is received, it is conditioned, dig-
itized, and then fast Fourier transformed. The first few harmonics of the transform
are chosen by reason of the sensor resolution and SIN. The number of input layers
to the perceptron equals the number of harmonics. The number of nodes of the
hidden layer will typically be threefold that of the input layer, enough to allow for
effective separation of the classes in feature space. The number of output nodes
corresponds to the number of classes, and the connections between nodes are
weighted. At every node, a summation of the weighted inputs is subjected to a
sigmoidal nonlinearity. In the course of training, a heuristic rule derived from the
classical Widrow-Hoff technique [Widrow and Hoff, 19601 is used to adapt the
weights, and the weight changes are updated, working backward from the output
layer to the input layer. Afterxvards, when classification occurs in real time onboard
the missile, the particular output node that coincides with the input class will be
activated. ,
Comparing neural network classifiers. It is important when com-
paring neural-network classifiers with conventional ones to consider a particular
neural-net algorithm in conjunction with its proper conventional counterpart. Lipp-
man [I9871 submits that the single-layer perceptron is analogous to the Bayesian
classifier, and the multilayer perceptron is analogous to the k-nearest-neighbor clas-
sifier. The customary basis on which classifiers are evaluated is a single-look prob-
ability of correct classification. This number can be derived from a confirsion matrix,
which might look like
Testing Target
1 2 3

21' I3l3 Training

Target
p32
412 Guidance Processing Chap. 6

T h e diagonal elements of this matrix are the probabilities of correctly classifying,

while the off-diagonal elements give the probabilities of misclassifying. The goal
is, of course, to achieve unity diagonal terms (correct decisions) and zero off-diagonal
terms (incorrect decisions) with high confidence. In actuality, one attempts to max-
imize the trace of the matrix, while minimizing the sum of the off-diagonal elements,
where different situations may call for the use of a particular cost function to weight
the off-diagonal terms. Typical radar-range profiles for a decommissioned U.S.
naval combatant are shown in Figure 6-50b, and a representative set of features is
shown as an input to the schematic of the neural network of Figure 6-50c. When
a number of other combatants together with this one are used for training and testing,
the average probability of correct classification is derived from the single-look con-
fusion matrices. Subsequently, a comparison is made of results for Bayesian, nearest-
neighbor, and back-propagation-based algorithms a t various aspects, and the deg-
radation of those single-look results versus distance from the training point is de-
termined. While the results indicate a good performance on the part of neural net-
works in some cases, the fact that the algorithm, features, and decision-integration
rule have not been optimized means that no firm conclusions can be drawn. The
algorithms described so far have been applied to a limited closed-set classification
problem and, consequently, a broader range of data sets must be used for training.
A synthetic radar-signatures simulation model developed by Georgia Tech. Research
Institute [Tuley et al., 19831 provides a means of generating such data sets. This
tool makes it possible to accomplish extensive optimization of classical as well as
neural-network algorithms. Applications of these algorithms will eventually include
SAR, inverse SAR, and rnonopulse imaging radar.

Extended target detection and segmentation. Besides RF seckers,

consideration is also being given to IR seekers for current and future missile-guidance
roles that will include both antisurface and land-strike warfare. Some of the ad-
vantages inherent in IR technology for antiship missile application include passive
operation, good resistance to jamming, and high spatial resolution. T h e last ofthese,
high spatial resolution, is needed in connection with potential operational require-
ments for target classification. Given that there is an adequate SIN, high classification
accuracy requires high spatial resolution, regardless of whether the imagery is in-
tcrpreted by a human operator [Rosell and Wilson, 19731 or processed by a computer
[Ricdel and White, 19831. The primary drawback to IR antiship missile seekers may
lic in their lin~itedrange performance when conditions of degraded atmospheric
visibility csist. The signal processor dcscribed as follows [Steinberg and Rivera,
19871 is designed to optimize the detection range of 1It sensors against ship targets.
A single-framc signal proccssing approach is dcvcloped for maximizing II\ scnsor
SIN, which is conlplernentary to earlier approaches for SIN optimizations, such as
waveband optimization, advanced I11 detector dcvclopmcnts, and multiframc image
proccssing.
The idea of a signal processing concept bascd on a l l ~ r r n n r j r ~ i s i n r isysrcrn 111cldcl
followcd a study \vhosc results indicated that ranges obtained by human observers
Sec. 6.8 Future Guidance Processing 413

of visual displays could in many instances and under very diverse conditions sub-
stantially surpass ranges obtained by a hot-spot detection algorithm. The perfor-
mance of ship-detection algorithms could therefore be judged against the predicted
performance of human observers. The acquisition range against ship targets and
classification accuracy will be to a large extent be determined by seeker spatial
resolution, or pixel size. The SIN (and, hence, detection range) is maximized by
matching the pixel sizc to the target size. However, assuming adequate SIN, high
classification accuracy demands that the pixel size be made much smallcr than the
target sizc. Therefore, selecting the pixel size to maximize detection range means
that the resolution will be inadequate for classification, while making the pixel size
as small as possible to facilitate accurate classification means that the initial detection
range will be very poor.
Resolving the conflicting spatial resolution requirements for detection and
those for classification is a matter of employing image processing methods based
on a model of the human vision system used largely in the past by EO engineers
to predict the performance of human operators of thermal imaging equipment and
televisions [Rosell and Wilson, 19731. In this model, there is an infinite-dimensional
bank of spatial filters, each of which corresponds to a possible target shape. Every
conceivable shape is represented in the filter bank, plus all variants thereof that can
be formed by the process of translation, rotation, and scaling. Although the original
human vision system model did not lend itself directly to digital realization, MRSI
was developed that approximates the human vision system in performing detections
of targets seen against uncomplicated (uncluttered) backgrounds, such as are likely
to be found at sea [Gasparovic, 19821. MRSI, like the human vision system model
that preceded it, consists of a bank of spatial filters tuned for maximum response
to objects of differing sizes and shapes. Given that the human model, because it is
infinite-dimensional, is also nonrealizable, a particular challenge in designing the
MRSI was to be able to achieve detection performance akin to the human system,
using a low-dimensional filter bank. The noise-reducing characteristics of MRSI
cannot generally be calculated analytically, and consequently a computer program
was designed to numerically evaluate the effectiveness of the processor. Results of
initial computer simulations measuring ship imagery as input were encouraging,
even if they were not always easy to interpret. This difficulty was due to the fact
that the ship images were recorded under uncertain conditions. Computer simulation
was then used to determine the probability of detection ( P D ) versus SIN for three
ship profiles. It was found that the SIN improvement provided by MRSI processing
could be estimated as G = 0.8 qx,where A is the area of the target in pixels.
 Navigation and
Guidance Filtering
Design
The order of presentation of those elements that constitute navigation and guidance
filtering design is shown in Figure 7-1. Chapter 2 has presented examples of typical
target trackit~gsensors, such as IR, radar, laser sensor, TV, and tracker modeling. In
this chapter, however, emphasis is placed on guidance filtering and tracking as
applied to target tracking. The subjects of uncertainty in measurements due to clut-
ter, target acquisitionldetection and recognition are presented in Book 4 of the series.
For target tracking, many signal processing techniques are used to discriminate the
target from its background, other targets and decoys, while filters are used to extract
the geometric and kinematic variables involved in target tracking and guidance (see
Sections 7.1 to 7.5).

7.1 TARGET STATE ESTIMATION

As depicted in Figure 7-1, target state estimation involves stochastic filtering based
on target acceleration modeling for the purpose of target maneuvcr detection and
target tracking. In this context, the term lrackit{q has often been used to mean accurate
estimation of target states, without consideration for the antenna pointing/control
aspect of the problem [Cloutier et al., 19881. This section reviews the various fil-
tering techniqucs.
Sec. 7.1 Target State /%timation

Target Tracking Sensor

(Chap. 2.2)
I
Target ~ a n e u v J Modeling
r Target state' Estimation Autonomous~a!get Acquisition:
(Chap. 2.4) Detection and Recognition

Navigation ahd Guidance Radar ?racking Spacecraft ~ttiiudeEstimation

Filter Design (Sec. 7.3) (Sec. 7.4)
(Sec. 7.2)

1
I
I
I
Advanced ~aviga4onSystem Design Tracking in Clutter/ ~ultitargetTracking
(Sec. 7.5 & Book 4) (Book 4)

Figure 7-1 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design

Target tracking fllter. The tracking filter functions mainly to receive the
noise radar position data and to provide smoothed target position, velocity, and
acceleration estimates. These are subsequently used to generate a one-scan prediction
of target position for track correlation purposes. Tracking filters can generally be
classified according to memory features into the following three groups: the fixed
memory filter, the expanding memory filter, and the fading memory filter. The
fixed memory filter, such as the maximum-likelihood filter, typically demands the
storage of all data reports which take place within the time corresponding to the
memory's window. The expanding memory filter (for example, classical linear
regression filter) incorporates all past data samples at the time of a new observation
to form a new estimate. This characteristic is disadvantageous for estimating ma-
neuvering targets because of the substantial fluctuations of the target state during
the estimation period. Thus, fading memory filters are often favored, where the old
data are used but are forgotten at an exponential rate [Schleher, 19801.
Six tracking filters that are widely used in systems are the Kalman filter, the
simplified Kalman filter, the modified maximum-likelihood filter, the a-P-y filter,
the Wiener filt'r, and the two-point extrapolator. These filters are typically appro-
priate for implementation with track-while-scan and other nearly constant data rate
tracking sepsors. Other types of filters include least-squares filters, polynomial fil-
ters, and adaptive filters, but these are not presented explicitly in this section. Book
4 of the series presents the topic of adaptive filters.
It is assumed that the gain vectors of the first three filters (Kalman filter,
simplified Kalman filter, and maximum-likelihood filter) can be calculated in real
time. This enables the filters to be adapted to varying tactical environments. It also
permits optimal tracking in the presence of missed data points. An implementation
of the stored-gain versions of these filters can be achieved at significant computa-
tional savings. Examples of stored-gain filters are the last three filters considered
(a-P-y filter, Wiener filter, and the two-point extrapolator). The first five filters
just described are examples of recursive filters "with memory." Figure 7-2 illustrates
 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

Signal Processing
and
Sensor Data Association

Predicted
Grget State

Figure 7-2 Block Diagram Representation of the Recursive Filter

a general block diagram representation of the recursive filters considered. The dif-
ferences in filter formulations are found in the system models and the way in which
the filter gain vector is calculated. Because it requires so little memory, the filter
that is easiest to implement is the two-point extrapolator.

7.1.1 Target Tracking Filter Summary

The following, adapted from Cloutier et al., [1988, 19891, summarizes various types
o f stochastic filters that havc been employed to estimate target motion. A compar-
ative evaluation o f some maneuvering target t r a r k i n g a l g o r i t h m s is p r e s e n t e d in Lin
and Shafroth [1983(c)].
Single-model adaptive Kalman filters can be split into t w o groups-classical
and reinitializing. Classical adaptive filters (for example, Greenwell ct al. [1983]),
when applicd to thc air-to-air problem, rely on a continuous modulation of the filtcr
bandwidth in response to targct maneuvers (implicit maneuver dctcction). Rcini-
tializing-type filtcrs arc based on explicit targct maneuver detection. When target
motion differs from that assumed in the model, a bias appears in the innovations
process. This bias is detected b y employing statistical hypothcsis testing. During
the detection process, the filter is in a nonadaptive mode. Once dctection occurs,
the filter's biased-state estimates are instantaneously adjusted according to the CS-
timated input and the filtcr is rcinitialized. [Bullock and Sangsuk-Iam, 1984; Chan
et al., 19791 assumed constant acceleration over small time intervals in developing
reinitializing filters. Dowdlc ct al. [I9821 and Tang ct al. 119841 assumcd constant
velocity. Lin and Shafroth [1983(b)]avoided input estin~ationby dcvcloping a rcin-
itializing filtcr bascd on concatcnatcd mcasurcmcnts. T h e sequential tracker cnlploys
batched mcasurcmcnts and is reinitialized by a local cstimatc whcncvcr the diffcrcllce
between the two cxcceds a predetermined value. Thcrc arc drawbacks to both types
of single-model adaptivc Kalman filters. The classical adaptivc filtcr suffers primarily
from an inhcrent lag, which is sufficicntly pronounccd as to rcsult in a significant
loss o f pcrformancc. In particular, by the timc the filtcr bandwidth cxpands, the
target may have transitioncd into nonmancuvcring flight. Thc primary difficulty in
reinitializing filtcrs is sctting thc dctcction threshold. Thc dcsirc to havc thc filtcr
Sec. 7.1 Target State Estlmatlon 41 7

rapidly respond to maneuvers runs contrary to the goal of a low probability of false
detection.
As shown in Chapter 4.2.3, the multiniodcl Kalman filtcr consists of a bank
of filters and is ideally suited for the cstiniatioti of systems with parametric varia-
tions. Each indrvidual filtcr from the bank is optinlally designed for a discrete pa-
rameter level. As shown in Book 4 of the series, the addptivc state estimate is
obtairicd either from the conditioned probabilitylwcightcd average of the bank
mcrrlbcrs or fro111 the single member which displays maximum a posteriori like-
lihood [Yuch arid Liri. 1984, 1985(a)l.In the case ofa semi-Markov model, switching
within the bank occurs according to a Markov transition. While swift adaptation
can be achieved with the multimodcl filtcr, its exponentially expanding memory
requirements must be limited to irnplcmcntation purposes. This can be done in a
variety of ways. Maybeck and Hentz [I9871 employed a moving bank tcchnique
and recommended decision logic for moving the bank. In a nonlinear application,
Verriest and Haddad [1986, 19881 used a consistency test based on the original linear
regions of the nonlinear system. Gholson and Moose [I9771 made certain statistical
assumptions concerning the individual filtcrs \vhich reduced the bank to a single
Kalman filter structure augmented by a recursive learning term. The tcchnique
employed by Blom and Bar-Shalom [I9891 is one of hypothesrs merging wherein
a single Gaussian probability density function (PDF) is used to approximate the
mixture of assumed Gaussian PDFs by moment matching.
In the case of tracking filter design of the air-to-air dynamics1measurements
structure, most target state estimation models consist only of the linear kinematic
equations even though the actual target dynamics are nonlinear. As a practical matter,
it makes more sense to erroneously estimate target acceleration with a linear model
than with a nonlinear model. Also, in the small time interval between seeker updates,
a linear acceleration model yields nearly the same target motion as a nonlinear model
derived from similar assumptions. Seeker measurements, by contrast, are spherical
in nature (range and angle) and are therefore nonlinear functions of the state in
Cartesian coordinates. Thus, one cannot avoid a nonlinear structure here, either that
of linear dynamicslnonlinear measurements in Cartesian coordinates, Figure 7-3a,
or that of nonlinear dynamicsllinear measurements in spherical coordinates, Figure
7-3b, where the nonlinear dynamics are a result of the nonlinear transformation of
Cartesian linear dynamics to the spherical frame. One is looking at the coordinate
systems in Figure 7-3 from below the x-y plane and from the right of the y-z plane.
Using" Cartesian coordinates. several researchers have transformed the non-
linear measurements into linear pseudo-measurements [Dowdle et al., 1982; Fitts,
1974; Lin and Shafroth, 1983(a);~ & etg al., 19841. Speyer and Song [I9811 compared
pseudo-measurement and extended Kalman observers and found that the former
was biased. They later confronted the nonlinear measurements by developing the
modified gain extended Kalman filter [Song and Speyer, 19851. In this extended
filter, the total variation of the nonlinear measurement function is not approximated
by its first variation, but rather identically replaced by a linear structure which is a
function of both the state estimate and the actual measurement. Verriest and Haddad
418 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

I Taraet
Target
( r ! -0, - $ )

Figure 7-3 Air-to-Air DynamicslMeasurement Models /From [Cloutirr et a / . , 19891, O

1989 IEEE)

[I9881 constructed a piecewise linear function to approximate the nonlinear mea-

surement function and, based on the linear segments, developed a semi-Markov
multimodel Kalman filter. Sammons et al. 119791 and Balakrishnan and Speyer
[I9861 have developed hybrid filters which take advantage of the linearity in both
coordinate systems. I'ropagation is performed in the Cartesian coordinate framc
while updating is performed in the spherical (or polar) coordinate frame. Just before
the update, the state statistics for these filters must be transformed nonlinearly into
the second coordinate frame, and the inverse transformation must be performed just
after.

Filter implementation. Concerning filter imple~nentationand the cor-

responding coordinate system selection, spherical coordinates should be given more
consideration. Examples of totally non-Cartesian filter implementations are found
in Moose et al. [I9791 and Gholson and Moose [I9771 w h o selected spherical co-
ordinates in implementing their semi-Markov models, both of which produced
simpler and more accurate trackers than their Cartesian counterparts, and Aidala
and Hammel [I9831 who used modified polar coordinates in a bearings-only tracker.
The filtering may be performed in polar coordinates with range, azimuth. and el-
evation angles, and their derivatives, as the state variables. In polar coordinates the
measurement system model is linear and uncoupled. However, evcn for a target
moving in a straight line at constant speed, the dynamic model is nonlinear, and
the linearization leads to large errors. In reality, the problem structure in Cartesian
coordinates is nonlinear dynamicslnonlinear measurements, linear dynamics appear
only as a result of modeling (for example, assuming constant-speed target). There
is a natural tendency to avoid spherical implcmcntations, in spite of their linear
Sec. 7.1 Target State Estimation 419

~ncasuren~cnts, because thcy transform thc linearly modeled. Cartesian dynamics

into nonlinear sphcrical dynamics. Cotisidcring that target dynamics arc nonlinear
in any coordinate systcm, it sho~tldbe true that linearizing nonlinearly modeled
spherical dynamics is no more detrimental than linearly niodcling Cartcsian dy-.
namics. Such was shown to be the casc in Moose ct al. [I9791 and Cholson and
Moose [19771. Finally, thcre is no compelling reason to model target acceleration
in Cartcsian coordinates. Lincar modcls of inertial radical and angular accclcration
could be devclopcd directly in sphcrical coordinates. In this way, thc entire filtering
problem could be pcrformed linearly in that frame. This would rcquirc the nonlinear
transformation of inertial strapdown outputs to sphcrical coordinatcs, and the in-
verse nonlinear transformation of the filter's output to Cartcsian coordinates. In
dual-control applications, the nonlinear transformation of state statistics could be
avoided if thc guidance law were formulated in sphcrical coordinates. This type of
filtering should inspire a whole new rcsearch cffort concerning what is thc best way
to model radial and angular acccleration, and what is the simplest way to incorporate
target flying characteristics into such a tnodel [Clouticr et al., 19881.

Adaptive filtering. Although extended Kaltnan and various other non-

linear filters have demonstrated improvement over thc standard Kalman filter, these
have exhibited only limited effcctivencss as trackers in thc air-to-air encounter. This
can be blamed for the most part on inadequate target acceleration modcls. Even
though much progress has been made in acceleration modeling, no single set of
model statistics can accurately represent the huge set of diverse maneuvers capable
of being performed by a modern tactical fighter. This fact neccssitates the use of
some type of adaptive filtering for best tracking performance. Such a filter must be
able to quickly respond to a rapidly changing target motion. With the proper design,
the multimodel adaptive Kalman filter could be more effective than its single model
counterpart, although filter complexity is increased [Cloutier et al., 19881. This
performance superiority was demonstrated in Lin and Shafroth [1983(c)] in a com-
parison of several advanced tracking filters. In addition, Bar-Shalom et al. [I9891
employed a hypothesis-merging technique in which the mixture of assumed Gaus-
sian PDFs is approximated by a single Gaussian PDF via moment matching.
A new approach to the maneuvering target tracking problem such as adaptive
autoregressive (AR) target model identification is presented in Speakman [1986].
The primary focus of this work is on the method used to update the system dynamic
model and the process noise covariance. The procedure described herein assumes
only that the target accel'eration is exponentially correlated. The need for heuristics
in determining the target time constant and driving noise covariance is removed
due to the adaptive nature of the method. A nonlinear six degree-of-freedom digital
simulation of an air-to-air engagement is used to demonstrate the technique. Results
indicate that much more accurate estimates of target states can be obtained using
the adaptive method rather than the conventional Gauss-Markov model. Book 4 of
the series presents further adaptive filter design.
420 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

7.1.2 The Wiener Filter

T h e Wiener filter is a fading-memory, constant-gain filter that is used in track-

while-scan systems. The gain vector employed in the Wiener filter, which represents
the steady-state gain vector o f the regular Kalman filter, is computed off line and
stored in the computer. When steady state is reached quickly by the Kalman filter,
the Wiener and the Kalman filters, exhibit similar performance as shown in previous
sections. Except for the fact that no covariance elements are computed initially in
the case ofthe Wiener filter, both the Wiener filter and the Kalman filter are initialized
identically. Possessing constant gain, the Wiener filter does not need to solve any
auxiliary equations, and requires very little computer storage. Furthermore, because
its gain is derived from the Kalman filter, accounting for target maneuver statistics
directly, it can be adapted to a variety of vehicles and possesses the ability to ef-
fectively track both maneuvering and nonmaneuvering vehicles [Singer and 13ehnke,
19711.

7.1.3 Kalman Filter

The Kalman filter, a recursive, fading-memory filter en~ployedin track-ivhile-scan

systems, is the optimal filtcr for tracking when target motion equations are known.
The estimated quantities such as position, velocity, and acceleration are known as
states and are embodied in the state vcctor. The statc equation is given as a difference
equation for the targct dynamics in terms of state vectors. The Kalman filter makes
usc of dcrcrrr~inisricrargct dynamics plus a random process that accoullts for the
inexactness of the difference equations used to express the dynamics and for other
error sources. An observation equation, corruptcd by measurement noisc. is em-
ployed to observe system states. A product of the Kalman filter algorithm is the
optimum linear n1inimun1-error-variance unbiased statc estimate. Thc Kalman filter
algorithm also cstimates thc covariance matrix of the errors included in the estimate,
and therefore provides a technique for adapting the filter to changing targct dy-
namics. However, if the Kalman filter is not "tuned" to the appropriate target
dynamics, differences in the filter output and the true cstinlatc may causc it to become
unstable. This property of thc Kalman filter, prcsentcd in Chaptcr 4.5.4, is termed
di~~ergcr~tr
and must be considcrcd in any application of the Kalman filter algorithln
[Schlehcr. 19801. T o achieve ~vhitecxcitation (~nancuvcr)noisc which is rcquircd
for thc filter's optimality, the Kalman filrer e~nploysthc augmcntcd versior~of
targct dynamics model. O f all thc filters studied, thc Kalman filtcr is the ]nost
sophisticated, the tnost accurate, and the most cxpcnsive to implement.

7.1.4 The Simplified Kalman Filter

By simplifying thc maneuver model used in tllc Kalman filtcr, the statc vector 2nd
the number of indcpendcnt components of thc covariancc matrix can be reduced.
O n e way in which the nlodcl is simplified, for instance, is by incorrectly assuming
Sec. 6.7 Defense and OIfense Systems 401

for targets if they arc in the parts ofthc Doppler spectrum of interest and are dctcctcd.
Since they arc internally generated, they are obviously of no value to missilc guid-
ance. Fundamental implementation problems began to be understood in the 1940s,
but the state of the art in hardware was not conducive to satisfactory solutions. The
microwave sources of that timc were primarily magnetrons and were quite noisy
(although pcrfcctly satisfactory for conventional noncohcrcnt pulse radar opcration).
Also, thc receiving vacuum tubes available at that timc were large (and microphonic)
[Fossicr, 19881.

Air defense homing system. One of the advantages of an active seeker

is its ability to operate autonomously subsequent to missilc launch. Taking a semi-
active approach was the result of the difficulty of achieving the necessary isolation
ofthe recciver from the transmitccr in an active CW. In this approach, the transmitter
remains at the launch point and only the receiver is flown in the missile [Fossier,
19841. One of the early examples of a semiactive air defense system is the Sperry
Sparrow I with radar beam-rider guidance, which became the Navy's first opera-
tional missilc. The Douglas Sparrow II is equipped with active pulse radar guidance.
In the Raythcon Sparrow Ill, the transmitter was removed from the missilc and left
in the launching aircraft. By separating the transmitter from the rcccivcr by miles
rather than inches (and removing comnlon sections of waveguide through which
both transmitted and received signals must flow), the feedthrough and associated
noise problems were reduced by orders of magnitude. This increased the maximum
transmitter power level that could be tolerated in the active radar (a few watts) by
orders of magnitude, and, combined with the much larger antenna in the aircraft
used to illuminate the target, provided sutlicicnt tracking range to permit homing
all the way a t the required flight ranges. The Sparrow 111 was Lnally selected for
operation. Even more important than its low-altitude capability, it was a homing
missile that worked. It was about this time, noted Fossier [1988], that a new op-
portunity arose to advance the state of the art in low-altitude air defense. The U.S.
Army wanted to develop the technology needed to provide a battlefield SAM to
protect friendly troops from attack by low-flying aircraft. From this desire was born
Project Hawk. In a symposium on low-altitude guidance in early 1953, it was shown
how clutter and image (or multipath) problems could be overcome with a semiactive
C W radar homing missile.
According to Fossier [1981], the problem of seeing moving targets hidden by
ground clutter could be uniquely solved with CW radar in the Hawk system. Even
when this was proposed, however, it did not allay fears that the effect on guidance
accuracy of radar reflections from the earth, termed the image or multipath problem,
would be severe enough to cause the missile to home somewhere between the target
and its image and thus consistently collide with the ground before reaching the
target (see Figure 6-490. At the time the problem was being researched, the design
team of the Hawk system learned that horizontally polarized microwave energy can
reflect almost completely from a smooth earth in the forward scatter direction at
the grazing angles of interest, thus increasing the likelihood of the serious image
422 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

over position measurement uncertainty, and is defined by the three fundamental

target tracking modeling parameters: track period, target maneuverability, and mea-
surement noise
F 2 T~Q:/~/R:/~ (7-4)

where T is the time period between state updates. The optimal steady-state filter
is
Y,(k + 1 ) = Y , ( k ) + a ( k ) [ z ( k )- Y r ( k ) l (7-5)
Under steady-state conditions, F and a ( k ) are given respectively by
F2 = 4a2(k)l[l- a ( k ) ] , a ( k ) = ( - F2 + + 1 6 ~ ~ ) / 8 (7-6)

The optimal tracking performance of the first-order filter is o;,= a(k)Rk.

Sewnd-order target tracker: a-p tracker. The mathematical model

for the second-order target tracking problem is

The optimal steady-state Kalman gain is conveniently represented in the a-P tracker
problem as

The steady-state values of the components of the state estimation covariance matrix
are denoted by
lim PC = (P,,]
lrrr

The components of the prediction covariance arc dcnotcd by

lim P r = [tni.,]
k-=

The filtcr gain given by Equation (5) of Table 4-1 thus is

The covariance update equation from Equation (6) of Table 4-1 becomes, using
Equation (7-1 I ) ,
Sec 7.1 Target State Estlmatlon 423

Substituting Equations (7-7) and (7-10) into Equation (4) of Table 4-1 produces

Equating the terms of Equations (7-12) and (7-13) yields, after cancelling out some
terms,

am11 = 2Tm12 - T2m22 + T'4

-Qk, anr12 = Tm22 - -Qk,
T3
2
P m l z = T3Qk

(7- 14)
From Equation (7-ll),
I = R ( 1 - a) rn12 = R k ( P / r ) / ( l - a) (7-1 5)
and from Equation (7-14),

Using Equations (7-15) and (7-16) in Equation (7-14), gives

Comparing Equations (7-14) and (7-15), with respect to the quantity m12 implies

where the tracking index is obtained by using Equation (7-4). The optimal position
and velocity tracking performances are obtained from Equations (7-13). (7-IS), and
(7-16) as a by-product of the analysis and are given by

The resulting a-fi tracker is given by the Kalman filter equation defined in Table
4-1 as follows:
f,(k) = f,(k - 1) + ~ { , ( k - 1) + a(k)[z(k) - f,(k - 1) - ~ { " ( k- I)]
(7-20a)
424 Navlgatfon and Guidance Filterfng Desfgn Chap. 7

Example 7-1. The following example illustrates the second-order tracking

problem. Given that T = 1 sec, Q:l2 = 3 g, and R:'~ = 1,000 ft, the preceding
method can be used to show that the tracking index parameter is F = 0.0966 and
the steady-state Kalman gains are a = 0.3551 and P = 0.776. The detailed derivation
can be found in Kalata [1984].

Third-order target tracker. As with the analysis governing the optima]

second-order filter, a target modeled by position, velocity, and acceleration states
yields a solution also characterized by the tracking index parameter F. The math-

'
ematic model for the third-order target tracking problem is

[j~"(~
+ 1)
Y (

y,(k + 1 )
~

+
= 1 ]
;
0 0
r]
[;:::;I ~"(k)
+ W(k),

z(k) = [ I 0 0]

The optimal steady-state Kalman gain is

a2
p = 2 ( 2 - ( ~ ) - 4 6 = -
2 - a (7-22)

- a ) ]while the error covariance of state estimates

The tracking index is F L yy"/[4(1
are

at, = aRk, a;, =

8aP + y(P - 2a - 4) 2 =
0.. Y ( ~ P- Y ) R k
Rk,
8Ty"(1- a ) " 4T4(1 - a )

The filter equation is then given by the equations defined in Table 4-1. The meth-
odology formulated here can be used to improve the performance of midcourse
guidance accuracy. Applying the optimal filtering theory to the target tracking prob-
lem, the tracking index is found to have a fundamental role. This is true not only
in the optimal steady-state solution of the stochastic regulation tracking problcm,
but also in the tracking initiation process.

7.1.6 Modified Maximum-Likelihood Filter

Here, it is assumed that the predicted and measured variables are independent and
Gaussian. Instead of jointly considering the target position and velocity variables,
which would be equivalent to the Kalman filter, position and velocity are considered
Sec. 7.1 Target State EstImatlon 425

separately to reduce the storage requirement. This technique is called the modified
maximunt-likelihoodf;Itrr.The following derivation can be found in Trunk and Wilson
(19761. The joint density of the predicted position X, and measured position X, is

where K, and K,,, represent the predicted-position and measured-position covariance

matrices, respectively. The maximum-likelihood estimate of the position p. repre-
sents that value of p which maximizes Equation (7-23). The partial derivative of
the log of Equation (7-23) with respect to p is:
K;'(Xp - p) + Kil(Xm- ~1.) (7-24)
When the preceding partial derivative is set equal to 0 and solved for p, the max-
imum-likelihood estimate is obtained as
i. = (K;' + KG')-' (Ki'X, + Kz'X,.) (7-23)
In a straightforward way, it can be shown that the covariance of is

A new velocity estimate can be acquired by employing the new position estimate
(iand the old smoothed position. An equation with the identical form as Equation
(7-25) can be employed to combine the new velocity estimate with the old velocity
estimate.

7.1.7 Two-Point Extrapolator

An extremely simple filter that can be implemented with very little memory re-
quirement is the two-point extrapolator. This filter employs the last data point to
obtain vehicle range and bearing, and the last two data points are utilized to deter-
mine target range rate and bearing rate. Because this filter possesses practically no
memory, previous data points do not .prejudice predictions. Thus, the maneuvering
-

and nonkaneuvering vehicles previously covered are tracked equally well (badly)
[Singer and Behnke, 19711.

7.1.8 Comparison of Target Tracking Filters

Comparison of tracking accuracy. There are two ways in which data

can be entered into the tracking computer: automatic and manual. As the first clas-
sification suggests, the track data are entered into the computer by someone who
views the video on a screen and specifies it for entry. In the automatic mode, no
such person is involved. With manual loading, only a limited number of tracks can
426 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

be updated by the operator in a certain time interval. This limits the effective system
data rate. Also, as the operator will incorrectly tag some o f the track returns, in-
dependent additive errors in range and bearing are included in the single-look mca-
surements. In an analysis conducted by Singer and Behnke [1971], the steady-stat,
one-sample-ahead prediction accuracies of each of the filters described up to this
point were compared on a percentage basis to that of the Kalman filter. The min-
imum tag time per targct for manual data entry is assumed to be 3.0 sec, and the
tag position accuracy is assumed to be uniformly distributed with maximum error
of 0.03 in. on a 5.0 in. display scrcen. In the case of automatic data entry, the system
data rate eauals the sensor data rate and no additional measurement errors are in-
cluded because of the automatic entry. The final results were obtained by deter-
mining the average of the experimentally acquired percentage degradations in each
of the range, bearing, course, and speed coordinates. This occurred because the
transient responses of these filters were short-lived relative to the tracking period,
and because the correlation coefficient p was typically small for the data rates and
vehicle types evaluated. On the average, the performance of the a-f3 filter is about
50 worse than the Kalman filter, maneuvering vehicles being responsible
for the largest degradation. Because the a-P filter significantly resembles the least-
squarcs filtcr, its gain vector quickly becomes too small to correct for the large
estimation errors that are produced from targct maneuvers (see Book 3 of the series).
The unifornl performance of the t~vo-pointextrapolator is more than 70 percent
worse than the Kallnan filtcr. Since sensor and vehicle attributes can~lotbe consid-
ered, this filter cannot be "tuned" as the others can. Both thc Wicncr and simplified
Kalman filters lverc no more than 20 percent worse than the Kalman filtcr, while
the modified nlasimum-likelihood filtcr \vas n o more than 10 percent \verse than
thc Kalman filtcr [Singcr and Hchnke. 19711.

Comparison of computer requirements. The conlputer time and

computer storage rcquircmcnts \verc examined for the initialization and main-loop
phases of cach filtcr algorithm. The results wcre normalized t o the computer re-
quircmcnts of the Kalman filter. Thc filter implementation requirements in as-
cending order are as follo\vs: t~vo-pointextrapolator, Wicncr filter, a-p filter, sim-
plified Kalman filter, Kalman filtcr. Furthermorc, the complexity of cach successive
filter increases by about a factor of 2. Thesc numbers depend largely on the computer
hardkvarc bcing uscd. Howcver. the relative computcr storage rcquircmcnts should
not dcpc11d substantially on thc computer hardware bcing cmploycd. The rclati~~c
computation times \vcrc cstablishcd for a typical computer uscd in tactical system
applications. Thc times to complctc an add, a subtract, and a store wcre assumed
to be equal; the timc to complctc a multiply was assumed to be five times that of
an add; and thc timc to complctc a divide was assumed to be nine timcs that of an
add ISingcr and Behnke, 19711. Although it has acceptable performance, thc 1110d-
ified maximum-likelihood filtcr obtained by arbitrarily dccoupling the position 2nd
velocity csti~natcsis almost as complicated as thc Kalnlan filtcr and thus \vould not
be employed [Trunk and Wilson. 19761.
 Sec. 7.2 Practical Navigation and Guidance Filter Design 427

In many practical systems. the tracking accuracy generated by the constant-

gain Wiener filter is equivalent to that of the more sophisticated Kalman filter at
one third the computational cost. It isbeneficial to implement the simplified Kalman
filter arid modified maximum-likelihood filter if high accuracy is demanded and the
length of the transient period app~oachesthat of the tracking interval. In addition,
the Kalman class of tracking filters is uniquely able to supply accurate measures of
tracking error statistics, even if missed data points exist. Ncvcrthclcss, in certain
situations, the implementation of highly simple filters such as the two-point cx-
trapolation may bejustified by the nature ofthc systcm rccluircmcnts and the impact
of tracking pcrforrnancc on thcsc rcquircmcncs.

7.2 PRACTICAL NAVIGATION AND GUIDANCE FILTER DESIGN

A guidance tracking filter provides target state estimation, which can be of trc-
mendous aid in predicting target position and improving the accuracy of an intercept
NGC systcm. Low-pass filtcrs attenuate the noise component of the sensor signal,
given the frequency characteristics of target signal and noise. Optimal estimators
such as Kalman filters optimally separate the target signal from the noise by using
information about target (and missile) dynamics and noise covariances.

7.2.1 Guidance Tracking Filter

Function and requirements. The primary components making up guid-

ance processing are the guidance filters and guidance law algorithms. Guidance
filters, which act as estimators and track the target, provide target range, bearing,
and rate. Figure 2-2 shows a guidance tracking filter whose function is to remove
as many nonstationary noises as possible and to preserve at the same time signal
integrity in order to achieve accurate guidance.
O n e of the main functions of guidance filtering is to smooth the noise in
computing the pursuer-to-target LOS rate for guidance and to separate the relative
target motion. In conventional PNG, they are used to estimate LOS rate ir, whereas
in advanced guidance laws they are used both to measure LOS rate u and to estimate
target maneuvers AT,. An advanced guidance tracking algorithm is needed to pro-
vide estimates of the target's relative position, velocity, and acceleration to support
the advanced guidance law. Guidance filtering also acts to stabilize any residual
missile body-motion coupling from the seeker head space stabilization control or
from radome error type distortions at the antenna. .
The choice of bandwidth for such a filter will be shown to reflect a trade-off
between noise transmission and performance. During flight the noise and body-
motion requirements on the guidance filtering vary. Consequently, the guidance
computer is programmed in such a way that it can adapt correspondingly. The
missile's flight can only be smoothed if the guidance filtering is sufficiently heavy.
It must be able to counter unstable motion that is the result of large random ac-
428 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

celerations, as it responds to the noise. Such accelerations give rise to very high
angles of attack and, consequently, induced drag, all of which have a depleting effect
on the kinetic energy of the missile. Still, the guidance filtering must be sufficiently
light as to permit quick missile response as necessary to correct for heading-
errors o r to pursue a maneuvering target. It must filter out noise to the extent re-
quired to prevent FCS problems during certain flight conditions. After clipping
spikes and transients, the filtering should not remain overly heavy. Moreover,
the filtering should minimize the effects of quantization and variable data rate
[Yueh, 1983(a)].

Design approach. Although there appears to be a large number o f de-

mands on the guidance filtering, these vary during flight. In flight, tracking error
noise is measured by the guidance computer, which then uses information from the
FCS and inertial reference unit (IRU) to ascertain which demand should be given
the highest priority. This demand is then applied to the variable filtering. During
the late 1960s and early 1970s, a few missile designers did take a cursory look at
applying the modern control theory developed during the late 1950s and early 1960s
to tactical missiles. Basically, as shown in Figure 2-17b, such an approach would
replace the classically designed low-pass filter with an optimal estimator such as the
Kalman filter.
In theory, this would allow one to "optimally" separate the signal from the
noise by using information about the missile dynamics and noise covariances rather
than filtering bascd on frequency content only. In addition, missileltarget states
other than LOS rate could be estimated, even if not measured, providcd they \vere
mathematically obscr\~able[Gonzalez, 1979(a)]. This, in turn, \vould allo\v one to
design more advanccd guidancc laws based on optimal control theory, because such
theory usually requires complete information concer~li~lg the n~issilcstates. The
tracking filter is bascd on bbth the laws of motion and a stochastic acceleration
n~odel,evas~vemancuvcrs, and other disturbances being modeled as pecturbations
upon the constant-velocity trajectory. The resulting optimal guidancc tracking filter
uses a Kalman state estimator with several comDonent state vectors in which stable
and accurate estimates of the relative position, relative velocity, and target accel-
eration are providcd to thc flight vehicle's fire control system or the missile's guid-
ance and control systcm. Consider the guidance filter formulation sho\vn in Fig.
7-4. The objective is to find G I ( $ )\vhosc output f r ( t ) tracks y . with
~ thc least
possiblc error c ( t ) dcfincd as
(1) = ( 1 ) - ( 1 )(s) = ( ( 5 - ) H ( )I S ) + ( ) I ( ) (7-27)

Figure 7-4 sum~narizcsthe optimal solutions of C,(s) that minimize txvo diffcrcnt
forms of the performance index which arc functions of the l'S1) of the position
cstimatc error c.(r), +,.(LO), dcfincd as
+ c ( ~ ) = +<(w) I Signal + +,(w) I Noise
 -
Target Position Noise
(with equivalent white noise PSD
Target Maneuver
$noise defined by Eq. (2-49))
Mtdcl - n Target Position Estimate
us Spectral
Whik Noise Dcnsity
with PSD +s* Shaping
(Sw Chap. 2.4.1) Filt"' H(s)
@e!!ssl
ks2+kls+ k,
-
G,(s) = k G,(s) = ks + k , G,(s) =
s+k sz+ks+kl s% ks2+kls+k,
- 2<wns+ w; -
- I + 2s/F+ 2s2/F2
s2+ 2<wns+ 4 1 + 2s/F+ 2s2/F2+ s3/F3

116
H(s) = l/S3 * *= ( , ) I 6
notsc p*= 0.707, tun =
'+noise
F* = (+S/+"',ise)

&e
m

*Minimilc 2
dl = -I
2n m
a (w) dw = E c2(t), Solutions Dcrivul in Chap. 4.6

**& the Gain Crossover Frequency w,, $c(w,)lSignal = $c(~)lNoise.

Figure 7-4 Optimal Guidance Filters

430 Navigation and Guidance filtering Design Chap. 7

where
+.(u) 1 Signal = +.(w) due to signal = (Gf(iw) - 1) H(jw)12 4$ (7-28b)
cbe(o)I Noise = +,(w) due to noise = I(Gf (jo)12 +,,is,

Note that the total RMS miss distance u,.,(tf) is defined by

Y ] = d& J:~+~(co) I Signal dw.

uy,(tf) ( Noise = d$ J.: me(.) I ~ o i s d-e

Concerning the actual signal processing, the state vector is initialized at the
track onset to minimize scttling time for relative position and velocity from the
FCS. Modes determining gains include air-to-air, air-to-surface, surface-to-air, and
surface-to-surface. Time-varying gains are determined based on weighting of mea-
surements versus history by including: (1) continuous update based on range; (2)
reinitialization based on maneuver detection (discussed in Book 4 o f the series); (3)
refined gain initialization values based on track onset, targct maneuver, and coast;
and (4) optimized stcady-state gain parameters.

7.2.2 Navigation and Guidance Filtering for Position

Estimate

It is shown in this scction that a time-varying, single-time constant noise filter as

shown in Figure 2-6 can be used in the homing loop to estimate the LOS rate signal
required for PNG. The optimal noisc filter t i n ~ cconstant, being the i~lvcrsrof the
optimal frcqucncy, is (T,),, = l/(k),,,, whcre (k),, is given in Figure 7-4. At a
largcr range to go the rcceivcr noise +,, in the system is larger (see Figure 6-9b)
and causes the optimal filter timc constant (T.,),,,,,to bc larger than that found a t a
shorter rangc to go. Bccausc this noise dccrcascs as thc flight progresses, the result
is that thc timc constant reduces as well. Near the cnd of the flight, howcvcr, the
large value of glint noisc ncar thc intercept point would prcvcnt thc time constant
from going bclow (T,),,,,,,which was calculatcd from the solution providcd in Figure
7-4 by using +,, = 0 and b2 = 0. Sincc the rcccivcr noisc is the dominant factor
,,
in the miss distance cxccpt a t a of lcss than 1 scc, thc time constant (T,),, is used
to attenuate thc rcccivcr noisc which dcpcnds on thc rangc to go and is approxilnatcd
as follows:
(T),, = ll(k),p, ;- C!, - CHIV,
where C rcprescnts a constant dependent on seeker characteristics. Uy using a com-
puter to both measure the noise and then adjust the filtering based on that mea-
surement, the guidance filter gains are adapted during flight to the changing receiver
noise. A signal proccssing algorithm is used to produce receiver noise having spectral
propcrtics that characterize actual homing environments. In the case of trying to
intercept a highly maneuvering target, it would be necessary for the optimal break
frequency to increase, which is equivalent to the noise filtcr time constant decreasing.
Note that the discrete-tittle s y s t r t i ~for this filter is the same as the a tracker presented
in Section 7.1.3.

7.2.3 Navigation and Guidance Filtering for Position

and Velocity Estimate

In the case of onboard navigation systems, which receive targeting sensor position
information contaminated by noise, it is required to provide these systems with
vclocity as wcll as position information for guidance. Therefore, in addition to
smoothing thc position signal, it is necessary to derive the components of velocity
as these are not measured. Three different techniques are used to obtain this infor-
mation: approximate differentiation and filtering, an aided INS, and complementary
filtering. This section describes each of these systems and assesses their performance
in flight based on Niessen [1973].

Differentiation of position information. With this technique (see Fig-

ure 7-5a). velocity information is derived by approximate differentiation of the
sensor's position signal. However, this approach of differentiating position infor-
mation alone is not capable of providing acceptable velocity information because of
signal noise. There is a restriction imposed by the fact that position and velocity
information used in display for N G C system applications must be practically noise
free.

Complementary filtering. A second technique used to provide velocity

and position information for onboard navigation systems is to employ the second-
order complementary/Kalman filtering presented in Example 4-18. The resulting
block diagram is the same as the one shown in Figure 4-10, but with u l = u2 =
0. The optimal gains are given in Figure 7-4. This approach is based on continuously
mixing sensor position measurement X with acceleration information x obtained
from onboard sensors. Inputs to the filter consist of measured or derived acceleration
inputs u = x (equivalent to us in Figure 7-4), which provide high-frequency position
and velocity information, and position measurements inputs z = X (equivalent to
n in Figure 7-4), which provide low-frequency position and velocity information.
T h e onboard flight vehicle instrumentation used to provide the acceleration infor-
mation might consist of attitude reference gyros and body-mounted accelerometers.
Based on the acceleration and position inputs, the filtering system first computes
ground-referenced accelerations and then combines this information with the noisy
432 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

1 x (APPROXIMATE)

(ii) TIME RESPONSE

X
sin 0

Y
sin 0

OMPLEMENTARY
FILTER

1.a
z
- zz,,
COMPLEMENTARY
FILTER

Figure 7-5 (a) Transicr Function and Time Response for Approximate Ilifler-
entiation (b) Complcmcntary Filtering Navigation System Computations (Fro111
[.%w"r, 197.51 u,i~liprnni.rrin~r.hlmAC.4RD)

position measurement signals on a weighted-frequency basis to obtain satisfactory

position and velocity information. In essence, the filtering technique is combining
acceleration and vehicle position data to produce low-noise estimates of both velocity
and position. Note that thc discrcte-time system for this filter is the same as the a-
f3 tracker presented in Section 7. I .5.
Sec. 7.2 Practical Navigation and Guldance fllter Deslgn 433

The complementary-filter gains used in Niessoi [I9751 for aircraft corre-

sponded to a natural frequency of w,, = 0.45 rad/scc with a settling timc constant
of 12.5 sec, based on the timc to settle within 2 percent ofstcady state. The selection
of gains was designed allowing the time constant to be long enough for suitable
attenuation of noisc from the position measurement, but short enough to ensure
small errors which might result from inaccuracies associatcd with the acceleration
information. In regard to practical applications, the filtering system can serve to
obviatc the need for more complex systcms such as inertial or Ilopplcr navigation
systcnls. The noise on tlic position output is greatly reduced compared to the noise
on the position input signal. The accclcrometer signal noisc is primarily due to
vehicle structural vibration. As shown by the low-noise velocity estimate, this signal
noisc is also essentially eliminated by the integration process within the filter. Both
the acceleration and the position measurement noises are essentially eliminated by
the filter. As indicated by the block diagram of the system shown in Figure 7-jb,
corrections in the form of system computations are applied to the body-mounted
accelerometers to account for gravitational effects and to resolve the accelerations
into components along the runlvay reference coordinates. It was assumed that the
pitch and roll angles were small during the final approach which permitted less
stringent computational requirements. For intercept applications, applying either
Equation (7-28c) or Equation (4-45) yields

7
Total RMS miss distance = u,,(tf) = .\/%= d2 +iL?se 4:'''

INS with periodic radar position updates. An INS using periodic

radar position updates was employed for steep-angle approach work [Kelley et al.,
19741. Using a former Gemini spacecraft INS as the working system, modifications
were made to allow the radar position data to serve to update the navigation outputs.
Sampled radar signals were digitized at a ground station at 1-sec intervals prior to
being transmitted to the flighr vehicle by means of a digital telemetry link. The
digital computer outputs consisting of position and velocity information were con-
verted to analog signals and then sent to the onboard analog computers. In general,
the sufficiently low noise level and high accuracy of the signal outputs made them
very suitable for use with the flight director display application. Unfortunately, the
gross weight (approximately 8110lb) and complexity ofthe system made it of limited
applicability due to high maintenance and operational costs. The accuracy of the
complementary filtering system and the INS were compared in flight with periodic
radar position updates. Madigan [I9701 gives an account of the baseline performance
data on the INS, while Anon [I9691 provides a description ofthis system's navigation
computations, including the update logic. For long-term position and velocity in-
formation, both systems depended on the precision tracking radar, with the com-
plementary filtering system receiving continuous position information and the aided
INS receiving position updates at 1-sec intervals. The position-error drift rate of
the INS was approximately 2.0 nautical m p h in the case of no updates. O n the other
434 Nauigatfonand Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

hand, the position-error drift rate of the complementary filtering system was es-
timated to be on the order of 100 to 200 nautical mph without position feedback.
This high drift rate was primarily caused by approximations which were made in
resolving the accelerations as well as by computer scaling limitations.

7.2.4 Navigation and Guidance Nltering for Position.

Velocity, and Acceleration Estimate

The application of advanced guidance laws generally requires, in addition to the

LOS rate information, an estimate of the current target maneuver level. In a general
-
problem, one may not have knowledge of future target acceleration. However, in
the problem of a missile intercepting another missile, called the target missile, which
in turn is homing on a flight vehicle, the target missile undergoes a sinusoidal
phenomet~on.Thus, the frequency and amplitude of the acceleration may be ob-
tained by system analysis. The phase information may be obtained by measurements
of the missile velocity. In the problem of an antiballistic missile intercepting a reentry
vehicle (RV), one has knowledge of the flight path of the RV and, thus, its accel-
eration profile. Similarly. in a n antisatellite (ASAT) missile the target acceleration
is a known quantity. Thus, the results presented in this section, which estimatc
target accclcration, may be quitc useful in several scenarios [Ashcr and Matuszewski,
19741.

Uniformly distributed target maneuver. Following the third-order

complemcntary/Kaltnan forn~ulationin Chapter 4.6.3 (see Exan~ple4-22), it is
possible to derive a simple form of a single plane Kalman estimator by taking into
account thc two ]nost important stochastic disturbances in a guidance system. ran-
dom targct maneuvering and noisc. both of which arc sho\vn in Figure 2-21d. Thc
optimal bandwidth for the system is sufficiently wide to follow the target motion
but narrow enough to filter as much of the noisc as possible [Duricux, 1984; Ncs-
lines, 1986; Travcrs, 1985).
Approach A. With this approach, thc onboard computer can be used to
derive the state and measurement equations as modeled in Equation (7-1). From
Equation (4-54), thc state estilnate equations are

Thc output cstimatcs arc thc LOS ratc and targct acccleratiol~cstimatcs, exprcsscd
rcspectivcly as

Front Equation (4-56) or Figure 7-4, the Kalnlan filter gains are
Sec. 7.2 Practical Naulgatlon and Guldance Fllter Design 435

Figure 7-6a shows a filter which is simplified from the generalized third-order
complemcntary/Kaln~anfilter in Figure 4-11. The natural frequency of the target
tracking filter is defined as

Substituting Equation (7-33) into Equation (7-32) and applying Equation (4-53),
the Buttcrworth form of the transfer function is as follows:

L= 3' 7 filter time constant = 21F

y, 1 + 2slF + 25F' + s 3 1 ~ "
Figure 7-7 shows that the third-order filter has the peaking in the Bode plot at
frequency F, that is, at (k),,p,which is the optimal solution of the approximate first-
order filter shown in Figure 7-4. The optimal frequency of the tracking filter is a
function of the range to go since the noise magnitude is also a function of range to
go. Applying either Equations (7-28c) or Equations (4-35) and (7-32) yields

Total RMS miss distance = cry, (tf) = fi = d2&~?,;?~,

$,"' (7-33)
which is the minimum RMS miss distance achieved only by the optimal filter. The
miss distances due to these individual sources can be computed in a manner similar
to the way in which the total RMS miss distance was computed.
If the relative position measurement is not readily available, then it must be
reconstructed as follows. The LOS angle must first be generated by adding the
integration of the seeker rate gyro to the boresight error, that is, 6 = E + ad, as
was done in Durieux [I9841 and Nesline and Zarchan [1985]. Then the relative
position information is derived based on y, = ~ 6Seeker
. dynamics have been totally
eliminated from the guidance transfer function. T o summarize, provided the range
and time-to-go information are available, third-order noise filters are capable of
estimating both LOS rates and target maneuvers. At the same time, implementation
of PNG does not strictly require target maneuver estimates. It is in fact possible to
implement PNG in the absence of both range and time-to-go data by using a simple
low-pass noise filter. When a third-order noise filter is used, however, decreasing
the filter's natural frequency or, equivalently, increasing the low-pass filter time
constant reduces noise transmission at the expense of increased miss distance re-
sulting from increased target maneuver noise. The point must also be made that it
is of course possible to design an optimal noise filter using advanced estimation
theory. The detailed derivation can be found in Chapter 4 on Kalman filtering.
Finally, the discrete-time system for the preceding filter is the same as the ~ - P - Y
tracker presented in Section 7.1.5.
 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

k=ZF
k, = 2F2
kl = F3
-
ir -b
-
kl
-- 9 .
-
kl 11s

Compared to Fig.4 - l l a :
fir=* Yr
A =
P P
Yr = X Amy 'u
-
u1 = u , = o &Y ?
b
a) Approach A

Compared to Fig.4 - l l a :
9, = P
P
Yr =X
* by=%
by= -u b
A A
Yr =x u 1 = u2 -- 0 b y h?b
b) Approach B

Compared to Fig.4 - l l a :

c) Approach C
Figure 7-6 Guidance Filters for Estimating Uniformly Distributed Targrt Ma-
neuver
Sec 7.2 Practical Naulgatlon and Ciuldance FIlter Deslgn

+
3
2
-
Y
3
a
'E 0
%
Z

Figure 7-7 Asymptotic Plot of

RadISec
Trajectory Tracking Filter

Approach B. This approach is somewhat similar to Approach A, except

that the model in Equation (7-1) is rewritten as

Applying Equation (4-54), the state estimate equations become

*
fr = jJr + k(z - i,), jJr = AT? - A,,,"+ ~ I ( Z- f,), A, = k,(z - f,)
(7-37)
where the Kalman filter gains are the same as those in Equation (7-33) in Approach
A. The output estimates are the LOS rate and relative acceleration estimates, ex-
pressed as
b= (ir + t,~,)l(v, t.:), g, ATy - (7-38)
The resulting guidance tracking filter is shown in Figure 7-6b.
Approach C: Angle-only measurements. In the case the LOS angle is
used as a measurement instead of y, there are three ways to proceed. Since the LOS
angle is a nonlinear measurement function of the state y, the first would be to use
the EKF (see Section 7.2.5). This, however, cannot accurately determine the target
position and velocity unless accurate range and range-rate measurements as those
in Equations (2-63) are also available. The second way to proceed for the problem
is to use the statistical linearization technique (see Section 7.2.5). The third is to
apply the results of Case 4 presented in Chapter 4.6.3. The measurement is assumed
to be corrupted by noise so that Equation (2-5a) becomes

where v, is given in Equation (2-22) with PSD defined in Equation (2-23). Fol-
lowing Case 4 in Chapter 4.6.3,
u = hz and h = l / ( V c & ) (7-40)
438 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap.

where z is the relative p'osition measurement. Using Equation (4-58), the state
estimate equations are given by:

(7-41)
where the Kalman filter gains are also obtained from Equation (4-58) with k, k 1 1
and k l being the same as those in Equation (7-32). The resulting guidance tracking
filter is shown in Figure 7-6c.

Poisson jinlcing maneuver. The problem is formulated the same wav

as earlier in this section, except the target maneuver here is modeled as white ~ 2 " s :
sian noise (see Figure 2-21e). That is, the acceleration of the target is modeled as a
white, Gaussian noise process. Following Approach B and using Equation (4-60),
the state estimate equations become

The resulting guidance tracking filter is the third-order complementary1Kalman

filter (Formulation 2) shown in Figure 4-1 1b. The Kalman filter gains are obtained
from Equation (4-62) with P l l , PI2,and PIJ obtained from Equation (4-61) with
41 = q2 = 0,q3 = (br (given by Equation (2-jl)), and 7 = l/A,. The initial condition
P(0) is assumed as follows:

Pzz(0) = RMS initial target velocity minus pursuer velocity

Next, following Approach C and using Equation (4-63), the state estimate equation
is given by
-
j, = y, + K ' ( u - 6 ) , (7-43)
- i
Y " =A T , - A,, + K;(u - 6 ) , A T , = - h y A r y + E;(o - 6)
--
where the Kalman filter gains are also obtained from Equation (4-63) with K, K I ,
and being the same as those in Equation (7-42). Assuming some components of
measurement noise, 11, in Equation (7-1 b) to be colored noise, then following the
results in Chapters 4.5.5 and 4.6.3, similar results to those obtained for the two
examplcs shown prc\riously {Equations (7-42) and (7-43)] can be obtained. The
targct control input in the Kaln~anfiltcr cquations is assumed to posscss a zero
to achicvc unbiascd estimates. A constant target acccleration can be estimated quite
well. Contamination to the three state filter rcsults in the rclative ~ o s i t i o nand relative
velocity cstimatcs can be brought about by abrupt changes in target acceleration.
A nonzero-mean targct control input can be achieved by adding a fourth state to
the three-state model, as shown in Figure 7-8. This fourth state represents the
Sec. 7.2 Practical Navigation and Guidance Pilter Design

Figure 7-8 Fourth-Order Target-

Pursuer Kinematics Model for Kalman
Filter lmplemcntation (From (Francis and
~ M i t r l ~ u l 19831,
l, 0 1983 IEEEJ

estimate of the bias due to nonzero-mean target acceleration input [Francis and
Mitchell, 19831:

Practical estimator gain design. Insight into the guidance and tracking
gains of advanced guidance laws can be achieved by making use of an extended
frequency-response analysis. If the control gains are not determined adaptively in
the modern guidance system, then implementation of the variation in these gains
requires the extra range estimation or estimated t,. Following Travers [1985], the
present discussion considers estimator gains for both active and semiactive homing-
receivers. Variations in these estimator gains ( k , kI, and k , ) are allowable during
most of the flight, but at some point they become fixed. In the early stages of
intercept only thermal noise is considered, while in the later stages of intercept only
glint noise is considered. The reasons for this have been discussed in Section 7 . 2 . 2 .
Assuming the target has a uniformly distributed target maneuver as shown in Figure
2-21d, the target signal PSD is given by Equation (2-49). Substituting Ro = Vctf
and R = Vc t, in the target noise PSD +,,i,, of Equations (2-25) or (2-48), and
considering only thermal noise, the characteristic frequency F in Equation (7-33)
for the semiactive homing receiver is

and for the active homing receiver is

In the last two equations,

and h. = (-) V?
n$tj
+rA
ti6
4-40 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

When only glint noise is considered, in contrast to thermal noise, the characteristic
frequency F becomes F, = . The ,t at which F, = F, satisfies t,/tf =

(+,fit;)]'/" and the t, at which F, = F, satisfies t,ltf = (t:$vf)1'6. It can be

~.
shown by substituting typical values into the right-hand sides of thelast two equa-
tions that a reasonable time for the estimator gains to remain constant in each case
is a fixed t,ltf = 0.2. T o achieve an acceptable miss distance, a minimum flight time
of ten guidance loop time constants T~ is generally required. Therefore, the required
time for halting the gain variation is at t, = 27,. Table 7-1 lists the estimator gains
- - seeker guidance filters of Equations (7-32) and (7-41).
for the active and semiactive
T h e estimator gains (K, KI, and El)defined in Equation (7-42) and the estimator
gains (Kt, ??;, andK;) defined in Equation (7-43) for tracking filter that estimates
a Poisson jinking maneuver, can also be approximated from Table 7-1 [Travers,
19851.

7.2.5 Advanced Guidance Mlter

Unlike conventional guidance schemes such as PNG, many of the new guidance
laws developed rely on accurate estimates of target dynamic states. It is generally
assumed that these states are relative (missile-to-target) position, relative velocity,
and target acceleration. Components of these vectors in an inertial reference frame
are estimated based on measurements provided by an active or passive seeker. Pur-
suer inertial acceleration, sensed by accelerometers, is employed as a control vector.
The most commonly used algorithm for obtaining state estimates is the Kalman
filter. In the event nonlinear relationships are encountered in the measurement equa-
tions, the extended Kaln~anfilter (EKF) is frequently used. In designing a Kalman
filter, one generally assumes that the state transition matrix and the noise statistics
are known a priori. This requires one to further assume that the dynamics of the
target can be modeled in a reasonable manner and written in state-space form. T h e
most commonly accepted target dynamic model in use today is the first-order Gauss-
Markov model [Speakman, 19861. Kalman filtering with n-state variables requires
a real-time computation of an rr x n matrix Riccati equation. Furthermore, a mi-
croprocessor implcmcntation may introduce numerical truncation errors due to lim-
itcd word Icngth. A common approach has been to reduce real-time computatioll
by neglecting some of thc cross-coupling terms and prccon~putingthc filter gains.
Such nlcthods arc ad hoc in naturc, and extensive simulations have been uscd to
tune thc suboptimal filters.
The nine-state guidance filter modeling equation is given by Equations (2-
64a and 2-64b), which is uscd as the dcsign n~odcl.The mcasuremcnt equation,
Equations (2-63a, 2-63b, and 2-63~). is assumed t o bc in thc form of a discrctc
domain z ( k ) = / I ( x , k) + v(k). T w o approachcs can be uscd to cstimatc the state
based on thc state and nlcasurclncnt cquations. O n c is based on the standard cxtcndcd
Set. 7.2 Practical NaulgatIon and Guldance Fllter Deslgn

TABLE 7-1 ESTIMATOR GAINS

G& Continuous-Time Svstem Discrete Time Svstem

& Semiactive
k 2h,/t, 2(h,itg)2'3 k=a
413
kt 2(h,/tg)' 2(hs/tg) k, = p i r
2
k1 (haitg13 (hsi'tg) kl = ~ i ( 2 ~ ' )
2 1/3 a, p, yare the gains
k' = kVctg 2h,Vc 2(hstg) Vc of the a-f3-y tracker

Kalman filter (EKF) presented in Chapter 4.2.1. Since the measurement equation
is nonlinear, it is necessary to form the Jacobian or matrix of partial derivatives H
where H,, = ah,iax,. The second approach is the statistical linearization technique
presented in Chapter 4.2.7. Both approaches are adopted in the discrete-time do-
main, and the discrete-time state equations are given by Equations (2-65a through
2-65g).

Extended Kalman filter (EKF) approach. The example introduced

here demonstrates the nature of problems that lend themselves to EKF analysis. The
nonlinear discrete measurement equations for a sensor measuring range and two
LOS angles can be represented as the true values corrupted by additive noise:

[%I. = [
Rtrw = ( x t + YS + z r2 ) 1 / 2
u .,,,, = tan-'[z,/(xt
u = tan-' ( y,lx,)
y,)2 I/? ]+
I. + v(k) (7-47)

[::<Ik[
where the subscript k denotes a time index. In Equation (7-47)
R,, + R, + R, + R,i,,,
( k ) = = Ue,,, + uef + ue, f (Jeyilnr (7-48)

are the noise statistics which are dependent on the particular sensor used. In Equation
(7-48) subscriptsf, glint, rn, and c denote fading noise, glint noise, thermal noise,
and clutter, respectively. It is assumed that

The EKF is perhaps the most obvious approach to filtering for this system since
the measurement is nonlinear in the state. The results show that, in spite of the fact
that relative position and relative velocity are being subjected to large dynamic
 442 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

variations, the filter is able to track these system states well. The estimates generated
by the filter of target acceleration are rather noisy, yet the filter does correctly identify
the mean target acceleration after an initial transient tracking period.

Statistical linearization approach. This example again considers the

three-dimensional guidance filter problem in which a better but more computa-
tionally burdensome approach is used that makes use of the statistical linearization
technique. Generally, what is done in this case is to convert to pseudo-measure-
ments. The pseudo-measurement is

z(k) =
[
R cos u, cos u
R cos a, sin a
Rsinue Ik = [I3 0 O]x(k)+ v,

where vp is the measurement noise in inertial coordinates, and where R, u,, and u
(7-50)

are the quantities actually measured. The Jacobian of this transformation is

cos cr, cos u
cos u, sin u
sin u,
- R sin u, cos u
-R sin u, sin a
R cos u,
R cos u, cos u
0
Thus, the first-order Taylor series expansion suggests the following approximation
for the variance of the pseudo-measurement vector, Equation (7-50).
I
- R cos a, sin u
(7-51)

$:,[
2 2
u:.). ua.z
r,(x, y , z ) = ui u\z] = r,(R9 uC,U) = s ? ( R , uc, n)zT (7-52)
u;, u y i uz
where ?(R, u,, u) is defined in Equation (7-49). The preceding formulation makes
possible the use of the simple linear discrete Kalrnan filter with only one modifi-
cation. In order to evaluate r,, the current best estimate of the position is converted
back to polar coordinates using Equation (7-47) and then

The uncertainty of the estimate is measured by ? ( R , s,, 6 ) and rp(2,, j , , 2 , ) . The

resulting statistical linearization algorithm is close, but not identical, to the EKF for
nonlinear measurements.

7.3 RADAR TRACKING

Discrete Kalman filter. The t~fo-dimensionalradar tracking problem

has been presented in Chapter 2.4.2 in which the radar tracking state model was
defined. The radar tracking problem is conccrncd primarily with cstimating R , R,
U, and u of some particular target. The radar is also conccrncd with having a future
good estimate of the targct's R and u. T o this end, the radar transmits a signal every
Sec. 7.3 Radar Trackfng 443

T sec which hits the target, causing some fraction of its energy to be reflected back
and received by the receiving unit of the radar. Lewis [I9861 discusses many good
approaches to radar tracking filter designs, and these are summarized in this section.
Suppose that it is known a priori that x(0) - (Z(0). P(0)). One initializing
measurement z(0) = (R(O), ~ ( 0 )could ) ~ be taken to find E(0) and P(0). Then

Since a well-designed filter converges to the same stochastic steady state for any
-x(0) and P(O), it is generally possible, as a mxter of convenience, to select x(O) =
0 and P(0) = I. Now, one has only to enter the system and covariance matrices
presented in Chapter 2.4.2 into the computer program that implements the discrete
Kalman filter. The program, given the radar readings R(k) and u(k) at each time
kT, will compute the best estimates of R, R, a, and 6. Equation (2-55) describes
two completely decoupled systems, one for the range dynamics and one for the
angle dynamics. A great simplification is therefore possible that amounts to running
two parallel Kalman filters on two second-order systems instead of running just
one Kalman filter on a fourth-order system. Since the number of computations
required per iteration by the Kalman filter goes as the cube of the order of the
system, this number can be reduced from approximately 64 to 16. Moreover, since
a separate microprocessor can be assigned to each filter using parallel processing, a
further reduction in computing time can be realized.

a-ptracker, and a-P-y tracker. An a-P tracker, as presented in Section

7.1, is used to estimate the position X and velocity V state of the system ~ ( t =)
a ( t ) = W(T) with position X measurements z = X + v. Here U(T) is the acceleration.
This corresponds precisely to the equations for the range subsystem (the first two
states of Equation (2-58)) and angle subsystem (the second two states of Equation
(2-58)). The Kalman filters used are therefore both a-P trackers. For a rapidly
maneuvering target such that R and ii are nonzero, more robust performance can
be achieved by using an a-P-y tracker. This is a Kalman filter to estimate the X,
V, a state of the system i ( t ) = w ( t ) with measurements z = X + v .

Multiple-rate Kalman filter for radar tracking. Following multiple-

rate Kalman filter presented in Table 4-2, suppose here that the range subsystem
is discretized using a period of T = Tf = 50 msec. The data sampling period T,
is now the radar period of revolution, whereas this quantity was denoted simply
by Tfin the other approaches discussed. Now, using the multiple-rate Kalman filter
in a radar tracking problem means that range and azimuth estimates can be made
available between scans. For a value of T, equal to 1 sec, updated optimal estimates
can be obtained every 50 msec, although the data arrive o i l y every 1 sec. A value
of T = 50 msec in the error covariance time update Equation (7-13) is used, and
 444 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

the measurement update [Equations (7-11) and (7-12)] is performed only every T ,
= 1 sec. In Chapter 4, techniques of continuous dynamics with discrete measure-
ments are listed in Table 4-3, all of which can be applied to multiple-rate Kalman
filter for radar tracking by propagating the estimate and error covariance between
scans in continuous time and by performing the measurement updates at the next
scan.

Extended Kalman filter. Let the state be XI = R , k 1 = R, x2 = u , x2

= u, from Equations (2-53) the state equations are

-
[(VTX,
vTcos x2 -
- V T X ~ ) I X :sin
-
i l
V x 2 sin x2
x2
+ wt(t)
] x2 - ( V ~ l R ) x cos
2 x2 1
+ u>r(t)
where wl (t) (0, q l ) and w2(t) (0, qz). The measurement equation for data points
z(k) is given by Equation (2-58). Comparing this to the state equation in Chapter
2.4.3 in x-y coordinates, the following conclusion can be drawn. Ifthe target exhibits
straight-line motion in R-u coordinates, the result is nonlinear state equations with
linear measurements. If the target exhibits straight-line motion in x-y coordinates,
the result is linear equations with nonlinear measurements. Hence, the EKF approach
that was done in Section 7.2.5 can also be applied here.

7.4 SPACECRAFT ATTITUDE ESTIMATION

The primary function of a spacecraft attitude control subsystem is the attitudc dc-
termination and, more generally, the state estimation (attitude of the main body.
appendages, and flexible modes) [Amieux and Claudinon, 19841. Onboard gyros
together with thc stabilized inertial platform provide the angular velocity of the
spacecraft for this application. Spacecraft attitude is measured by sun sensors and
star trackers. The attitude state, obtained from the kinematic equations, is augmented
by using additional state vector components for biases in each gyro. Consequently,
the gyro data are not dcalt with as observations, and the gyro noise shows up as
state noise as opposed to observation noise. Rclating the spacecraft's reference axcs
with the inertial axcs requires thc three Eulcrian angles pitch, roll, and yaw. Besides
having physical intcrprctations, these angles arc the minimum number of paramctcrs
rcquircd to rcprescnt the attitude. However. owing to the nonlinear naturc of the
dynamic modcl, which contains trigonometric terms, some rotations such as occur
in the gimbal-lock situation result in these anglcs bccorning undefined. As a rcsult,
the Eulcr angles do not generally lend thcmselvcs well to use as primary attitude
variables [Baheti, 19871.
Although previous work used the nine-direction cosincs to represent thc at-
titude, this approach was not widely adoptcd for many reasons. For one thing, thc
effcct of round-off, quantization, and truncation errors in the attitude propagation
 Sec. 7.5 Advanced Navigation System Design 445

was such that the resulting attitude matrix was not orthogonal. Also, in spite of the
fact that various orthogonalization schemes for the attitude matrix were developed,
one was still faced with the redundancy of the nine-parameter direction-cosine rep-
resentation, as well as the computational requirements. In much of the work in-
volving spacecraft attitude estimation, use is made of a four-parameter representation
of the attitude in terms of quaternions for the state-variable representation. Some
of the advantages of quanternions are that they can be propagated by a simple
differential equation, and that the elements of a direction-cosine matrix are quadratic
forms in the quaternions, and can therefore be easily computed. Although quater-
nions lack direct physical interpretation, this is more than made up for in their
advantages. Because no singularities are found in the quaternion representation, one
does not have to deal with the gimbal-lock situation. The subject of quaternions is
presented in Book 1 of the series. Some difficulty, however, is encountered in the
Kalman filter with the use of quaternions as the attitude state. This arises from the
fact that the four quaternion components are not independent, being instead related
by a constraint that the quaternion vector has a unit norm. Lefferts et al. [I9821
examines different schemes for propagating the state vector and covariance matrix
and renormalizing the quaternion vector. Applications of quaternion parametrization
can be found in the NIMBUS-6 spacecraft, the high-energy astronomy observatory,
and the NASA Multimission Modular Spacecraft [Baheti, 19873.

7.5 ADVANCED NAVIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN

7.5.1 Global Positioning System (GPS) Accuracy

Improvement

This section is based on the excellent paper presented by Kelly [1989]. Position-
location navigation systems are generally classified as dead reckoning, position fix-
ing, or some combination thereof. With dead reckoning, the position is kept track
of beginning with an initially known position by maintaining a continuous account
of the vehicle velocity. With position fixing, on the other hand, the current position
can always be determined without reference to any previous position. In the simplest
case, a position fix is accomplished by recognizing an observable landmark. With
GPS navigation these landmarks would be satellites, the orbital positions of which
are known at any time. Because of a requirement for landmarks, all position-fix
navigation systems are faced with a position error mechanism known as the geo-
metric dilution of position (GDOP). Such a mechanism occurs when the multilat-
eration geometry of the measurement sensors generates lines of position (LOP)
which are nearly collinear (rather than orthogonal). When this happens, the sensor
errors brought about by receiver noise, quantization noise, propagation effects, clock
bias, and so on can be unduly amplified when the sensor measurements are referenced
to the navigation coordinates to determine a position fix.
In contrast to an unbiased ordinary least mean-squares (LMS) estimator, a
446 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

Ridge estimator is a biased estimator. One of the attributes of the Ridge estimator
is that its mean-square error (MSE) in the presence of severe G D O P is much less
than the MSE of a conventional LMS estimator such as a Kalman filter. The idea
is to take advantage of the fact that the MSE is composed of t w o components, the
variance plus the square of the bias. It is possible for Ridge estimators to have a
smaller MSE than LMS estimators because Ridge Regression relaxes the unbiasness
condition by deliberately mismatching the estimator with the assumed process
model. The overall result for variance reduction is a smaller MSE than can be ob-
tained with conventional LMS estimation. The significance of the MSE as an error
criterion for a navigation system lies in the fact that it is the location of the aircraft
relative to its intended flight path or to other aircraft that is important. Letting P
6
denote the true aircraft position and its estimated position, then it can be inferred
from the MSE, ~[(b 6
- P)'], that if the MSE of is small, then @ is unlikely to be
far from p. When considering linear models, biased estimators lack an important
feature that characterizes unbiased estimators; namely, calculating the error in the
estimate does not require knowledge of the true parameter. It will be shown, how-
ever, that this is not an obstacle for the G D O P navigation problem.
GPS typically uses four landmarks/satellites to establish an accurate position
fix. Although GPS is characterized by a typically small noise error, the amplification
of its bias by G D O P can result in substantially reduced performance accuracy. The
bias as \\,ell as the variance inflation arising from G D O P can bc lowered by using
a GPS position-fix algorithm based on Ridge Regression. For the GPS Kalman filter
application, the Ridge Regression algorithm tunes the Kalman filter with predctcr-
mined Ridge parameters so the filter can achieve a minimum MSE estimatc. One
~ -

must be careful here not to confuse G D O P with the problem of a mismatched model
estimator since, even when these two are matched, the MSE of thc ordinary LMS
can be inflatcd by GDOI'. Thc Ridge Regression tcchniquc, howcvcr, sclccts a
suitable biased estimator that will reduce the MSE. The primary objective is to
obtain a smaller MSE for the estimator, as opposed to minimizing the residuals.
Hence, the operation is not simply one of tuning the Kalman filter process noise
covariance Q in order to compensate for unmodcled errors.

Position-fixnavigation. Traditionally, aircraft position fixing is a matter

of dctcrmining the intersection of two or more LOP with rcspcct to a known rcf-
crencc system. The L01' arc typically specified by & - f(3) = O where R is an
observation vector that contains thc mcasurcmcnts and f)(: is a function of thc
aircraft position 3. & may bc range measurcmcnts, bcaring mcasurcmcnts. rangc
diffcrcnccs, or rangc sums. A particular rangc mcasurcmcnt position-fix navigation
system is GI'S, for which & is the rangc mcasurcmcnts, and f(&) = I - &x I
with & being the ground rcfercncc transmitter coordinates. Thc position coor-
dinates & R of thc satellitcs, which constitute the GPS landmarks, arc downlinkcd
to the uscr on a navigation mcssagc in the form of cphcmcris paramctcrs. Ensurillg
a prccision fix rcquircs at lcast four rangc mcasurcmcnts in terms of signal dclay
from four satellites. Three of thcsc n~casurcmcntsarc for establishing the three-
dimensional position, \vhilc thc fourth mcasurcmcnt is for estimating thc uscr's
Sec. 7.5 Advanced Naulgatfon System Design 447

clock-offset error. This removes the necessity for a precision clock in the GPS
receiver. Jorgensen [I9841 defines an earth-centered coordinate system with respect
to which the four basic range measurements are made. The equations are

where c denotes the speed of light. X, Y , Z, and T denote user position and clock
bias, none of which are known. X,, Y,, and Z , are the known coordinates of the
ith satellite, while R , is the pseudo-range measurement to the ith satellite. Pseudo-
ranges are the actual range displacements plus the offset due to user time error, as
shown in Figure 7-9a. In order to design a linear estimator, Equation (7-55) must

uRCRAm'8
TRUCPoSrlIoN
LOCATED
AT INTERSECTION
OF 3 CIRCLES

ILL-CONDITIONED
%MATRIX
EQUIVALENT
TOGDOP \
at( E l ? (I13 1
a 2 1 a 2 2 a23
~ 3 a32
1
a41 0142 mu 1 1
1
1

I POOR GEOMETRY
n l ~ QDOP
n
GOOD QEOMETRY
LOW QWP
I
Figure 7-9 (a) Position Location and Time Correction from Intersection ofThree
Lines of Position (Two-Dimensional Navigation) (b) GDOP Concept (c) Scatter
Plots: 1,000 Samples of Size 32 (Courtesy of R.J. Kelly, 1989)
 Nauigation and Guidance Nltering D e i g n Chap. 7

Bo

A+/
Bl

OLS ESTIMATES di
FOR MODEL (HI
wlm NO MULTICOLLINEIRTY

OLS ESTIMATES $; FOR MODEL (HI

mrn MULTICOWNEIRTV ~JDOPI
A

(C)

Figure 7-9 (Continued)

first be linearized. This can bc done by expanding R , in a Taylor scrics about an

initial point X o , YO, Zo, and time TO,which is an a priori csti~natcof the aircraft's
position and clock-offset error. Such an expansion, carried out to first order, can
be written

where 6X, 6Y, 6 Z , and 6T are the corrections to the a priori estimates, and dR81
ax = cos 0, = a,, is the direction cosine of the LOS from the user to the ith satcllitc
as projected along the jth coordinate. The X , Y, and Z coordinates correspond to
Sec. 7.5 Advanced Navigation System Design

j = 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Let

The dynamic process model and the measurcnicnt model are given for an unaided
RF carricr receiver (that is, no velocity mcasurcmcnts). Assuming a constant-vc-
locity aircraft, an eight-state vector is spccificd that includes initial position correc-
tion vector 6 3 , receiver clock-offset T , velocity vector I/,and receiver clock-fre-
quency error f . The measurement model with sampling time A T is

where 6 3 = [6Xk 6Yk 6zkIT and I/ = [.kkYkzhlT. T h e dynamic process model

is given by

where the state transition matrix (8 x 8 matrix) assumes a constant velocity

aircraft and g is the process noise and takes into account aircraft deviations from
the constant-velocity assumption owing to effects such as wind turbulence, and so
on. Also, the covariance of is Q, which gives the expected acceleration deviations.
The estimated position of the aircraft at time k is

After every second, the direction cosines aij are again calculated using the new
estimates of Xo, Yo, and ZO.From the model composed of Equations (7-58) and
(7-59), a GPS Kalman filter can be constructed. Denardo and Loomis [I9881 do not
employ any approximation to Equation (7-56), and thus obtain a more accurate
model to develop an extended Kalman filter (EKF) for a constant-velocity aircraft.
T o gain an understanding of Ridge Regression, one first considers classical regression
theory, which begins with the measurement model given by
450 Navigation and Guidance Nltering Design Chap. 7

It is assumed only that a block of data YT = [Y.I, Y2, . . . , Y,] is given. In this
model x i s the measurement vector, H i s the n x p data matrix, and fi is the unknolvn
p x 1 parameter vector. GDOP, which is the principal concern, occurs in the event
that some of the columns of H are multicollinear. Belsley et al. [I9801 assert that
the literature contains no firmly established, precise definition of collinearity. This
situation is denoted by the various terms of collinearity, multicollinearity, and ill-
conditioning. In general, p variates are collinear if the vectors that represent them
are contained in a subspace whose dimension is less than p, which occurs if any on,
of the vectors is a linear combination of the others. A collinearity problem can still
arise even if such exact collinearity does not occur, and the latter rarely does in
actuality. What is therefore needed is a more encompassing notion of ~ollinearit~
in order to deal with the problem as it affects statistical estimation. ln a less restrictive
sense, then, two variates are nearly collinear if the angle between them is small.
Belsley et al. [I9801 define near collinearity or near-linear dependencies o f p variates
in terms of a conditioning index, which is the ratio of the largest eigenvalue of the
data matrix to the other eigenvalues. Eliminating scale dependence is accomplished
by normalizing the columns of the data matrix to unit length prior to computing
the eigenvalues. The GDOP concept is illustrated in Figure 7-9b for the GPS ap-
plication. The ordinary LMS (OLS) estimate of fi is QoLs, which is typically derived
by minimizing the sum of the squares of the residuals

with respect to B. That is, B is varied until SS(e) reaches a minimum, at which
point B is set equal to Qors. The OLS estimate for P is given by
Q0L.s = (H~H)-IH=Y (7-62)
For a given process defined by Equation (7-60). a data vcctor is generated such
that Equation (7-62) is the OLS estimator. In order to determine an error for the
estimate, the covariance oft-, C o v e ) , must be known. Suppose that E[p] = 0 and
that Cove) is known, that is,

~2 -
where I is the n x 11 idcntity matrix. The constant uc?lcan be estimated by Go -
-e Z g ~ l ( n- 1). Equations (7-60) and (7-62) then givc
E[QOLSI = e (7-64)
where QoL.7 is an unbiased cstimatc. From Equations (7-63) and (7-64), the
cov(QoLS)is
cov(fioLs) = E\fiOLs - E [ ~ ~ O ~ . ~ - ] I E[ [~ ~O~~oSL . ~ I I ~(7-65)
= ( H T ~ ) - ' ~ T ~ [ E ' ] H ( ~ T= H )u -? (' H T H ) - '
The OLS cstimate 6,can also bc reprcscntcd with scatter plots over an cnselnble
of samples of sizes as shown in Figure 7-9c. Thc crrors are given by e , = P, - PI
for i = 1, . . . , n. The ensemble average of thc distance 1 boLs
- 1 gives the
Sec. 7.5 Aduanced NauIgatlon System Design 451

precision of the estimate aOLS, and is called the MsE(fioLs). T o appreciate the
multicollinearity from a quantitative standpoint, the MSE for Q0L.s is calculated in
terms of its eigenvalues
MSE[~OL.S~
= ~ [ ( - ~b) ~ (~b o L~.-5 B)]
~ = u2TRACE[HTH1-' (7-66)

where A , denotes the eigenvalues of H ~ H As . H.rH therefore shifts from a unit

matrix to one characterized by a condition of high multicollinearity, variance in-
flation will increase as the smallcst eigenvalue approaches zero. With respect to the
error ellipsoid, the axis associated with A, will increase as A;'/"Figure 7-9c).
The form of the measurement matrix associated with the LOP matrix for the
aircraft position-fix navigation problem is HTH. The situation corresponding to
G D O P is in essence the multicollinearity that results from a bad measurement ge-
e
ometry. Put simply, the distance from @oLsto will be large if A.IIAX B A.VIIV. It
can happen that eoLs, even though it is at a very large distance from @, still satisfies
the LMS criterion. Stated another wav. , when multicollinearitv occurs. the least-
,

squares sum. or goodness of fit. given by Equation (7-61) does not necessarily result
in a good estimate of e . For this reason, Hoerl and Kennard [I9701 and Theobold
[I9741 proposed specifying the mean-square error as the criterion on which regres-
sion coefficients should be based as opposed to the SS(g) given by Equation (7-

+
61). The treatment presented here adopts the conventions ofthe navigation literature,
rather than following the unit data matrix formalism of Belsle et al. [1980]. GDOP
is defined in Jorgensen [I9841 as G D O P = T R A C E ( H ~ H ) - after the sensor
covariance matrix W is set to the identity matrix I. With respect to GPS, Jorgensen
[I9841 asserts further that: (1) GDOP is, in effect, the amplification factor of pseudo-
range measurement errors into user errors due to the effect of satellite geometry;
(2) G D O P is not dependent on the particular coordinate system employed; (3)
GDOP is the criterion for designing satellite constellations; and (4) G D O P is a means
for user selection of the four best satellites from those that are visible. It is evident
that a GPS signal processor which reduces G D O P is desirable from an operational
standpoint.

Generalized Least Squares ( G L S ) . Assume now that the information about

the model given by Equation (7-60) has been generalized to

The generalized least-squares (GLS) estimate is given by

452 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

The covariance of bGLS is found using Equation (7-65) and replacing H by H* to

get cov(fiGLS) = [ H T R - ' H I - ' . If the model given by Equations (7-60) and (7-
66) matches the process which generated the data vector 1, then Q C L s is the BLUE
of e .
Model with A Priori Information. It is assumed here that the model given
e
by Equations (7-60) and (7-66) has experimental data about such that the average
of all previous measurements equals Po. With this quantity, the model is now defined
by the following two equations:

-
where g WS[O, Qo] defines the mean and covariance of g = @ - @o in the weaker
form called wide sense (WS) which makes no distributional assumptions. Qo is a
p x p positive definite matrix. Instead of being a fixed unknown parameter, @ now
becomes a random variable. Equation (7-69) is rewritten in a condensed partitioned
matrix form using en formally as a measurement

For uncorrelatcd g and p, the Cov(g) is given by

T o solve Equation (7-70) for fi,,

Equation (7-62) is again used as the solution along
with Equation (7-71) to obtain as the GLS solution

Matching the tcrtns in Equation (7-72) with thosc in Equation (7-70), and then
using Equation (7-71). gives

Recursive estimation and the Kalman filter. In the discussion that

follo~vsboth R and Ql, arc p x y and diagonal. Furthcrmore, E[zk. = E[Q,
e:] = 0 for k # j and E[pl..I$] = 0. In csscncc, the cstirnate fi(k)+ takes thc place
of the a priori information el,. The linear rccursivc dynamic model for a p-variat~
time scrics Y1, , . . . , Y,, is

where thc first of thcsc cquations is thc dynamic process modcl and Q, is thc state
transition rllatrix which expresses the unknown statc el.as a knowtl lincar trans-
formation of thc prcvious state Bk-,plus a random error vector gk. Both H and
Q, are constant y x y matrices. The starting equation for el.
with k = 1 and Q, =
I is el = e(,+ g1. 111this equation, fro is known, being given by Equation (7-69).
All error vcctors arc uncorrelated. In contrast to the case of fixed but unknown
Sec. 7.5 Advanced ~YavIgattonSystem Deslgn 453

parameters e, the Kalman filter estimates random parameters ek, and consequently
one calculates an error covariance of @ ( k ) + - fik) rather than c o v ( 6 ) . The
~ o v [ f i ( k ) +- f i k ] is denoted here by P;, where b(k) is based on all the data [&,
+

Y , , Y2. . . . , Yk] up through k. Also, one has that &k)- - er, = @@(k - I)+
-) - ~k where b(k)- is the predicted estimate of PI, based on observations
- -
up to k 1. Then c o v [ b ( k ) - - e k ] = P; and (fi(k)- - p) W S [ O ,PI, ] where
PI, = @Pl-1 Q T + Q. Following Equation (7-70), one has as a model

Although cross-sectional correlation exists among the p variates, there is no lon-

gitudinal correlation along the time axis when the estimator is matched to the model.
Employing the same substitution used to obtain Equation (7-73), the estimate of
Equation (7-75) is

where following Equation (7-73), P; = [PC ' + H T R - ' H I - ' . For k = 1, this
equation becomes PT = [Q,T1 + H'R-'HI-', which is the covariance of
p ( l ) + . Using the matrix inversion lemma [Sorenson, 19801, P; is transformed into
the standard form, giving

Using Equation (7-77) and algebraically manipulating Equation (7-76), the larter
can be rewritten as

From the second term in Equation (7-78) define the gain as shown in Equation (5)
of Table 4-1, obtaining as in Equation (7) of Table 4-1.

Ridge Regression. Ridge Regression is a method by which the effects of

multicollinearity are offset. This is accomplished by limiting the minimum values
that the diagonal terms of the H T H matrix can assume, and such a technique was
employed by Riley [I9551 to circumvent numerical difficulties when inverting a
square matrix B, = HTH. With Ridge Regression, the diagonal components are
limited to a predetermined value by adding a small positive number, K, to each
diagonal component, the effect of which is to transform H'H into HTH + KI
where I is the unit matrix. Essentially, one attempts to keep in check the variance
-'
inflation of ( H r H ) by finding an estimator whose variance is a function of [ H T ~
+ ~ 1 l - l However,
. there is a trade-off to be made in limiting variance inflation by
limiting the large excursions of 1 H ~ I-'H. A bias is introduced since adding K to
HrH disturbs the balance between the first-moment components of There are e.
454 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

several methods for deriving an expression for the Ridge Regression coefficient fi,,
having the form of the variance described previously. Lindley and Smith [I9721 and
Vinod and Ullah [I9811 made use of a Bayesian formulation, while in Draper and
Smith [I9811 is summarized a phoney data interpretation. Other techniques have been
used by Marquardt [I9701 and Hoerl and Kennard [1970], the latter using the least-
squares technique with a circular restriction on the regression parameters.
Bayesian Formulation. In the treatment given here, Ridge Regression is
derived in terms of a recursive filter. The derivation is motivated by developing in
one step the Ridge estimator using prior information which plays a pivotal role in
recursive filter applications. Following Lindley and Smith [1972], the Bayesian ap-
proach is adopted here in the context of batch processing. T o derive the Ridge estimate,
one simply sets Qo = 1 / I ~and fro = 0 in Equation (7-73).

It is observed that as the Ridge parameter K + X , bR

+ 0 (the null vector). Thus,
the effect of making pR
biased is to shrink the estimates to zero. Unlike Equation
(7-64), for which E[&J = POLS, this is not true for the Ridge estimator of Equation
(7-80) because, for finite K, it is generally true that E[bR] f Po.

GDOP bias and variance shrinkage. The material presented hcrc fol-
lows Kelly [1990]. In addition to amplifying navigation noise errors, GDOI' inflates
bias components. As occurs with conventional LMS signal processing, Ridge
Regression is not always able to i d e n t i ! the non-GDOP bias errors and thereby
correct them. It is, however, possible to shrink the bias amplification brought about
by G D O P as is now shown. To begin with, let the noise error bc composed of two
components, a bias tern1 and a random term
-e = -e~ + &, E[e] = & is the unknown n x 1 bias vector (7-81)
E[go] = 0 and Cov[g] = E[go = u21where I is the n x n identity matrix. The
following is then true:
Linear model: -
Y = HD+go+i\B (7-82)
LMS estimate: bOLS= (H~H)-~H._Y
= fi + (H.H)-'H.A~ +
(H~H)-'H~~"
Expectation of bOLS:E [ ~ ~ =~ fis +] ( H T H ) - I N T O
Bias of fiOLS: BIAS [boLS] = ( H ~ H ) - I H ~ A J (7-83)
Consequently, G D O P as exhibited by ( H ' H ) ~ ' can amplify the bias given by
Equation (7-83) when the angle between the LOP is small. Thc MSE of is bol..$

= BIAS @ O L S ) ~ B I A S ( ~ O L S+) TRACE [ v A R @ ~ ~ ~ ) ]

Sec. 7.5 Advanced Navlgatlon System Design 455

The first term of Equation (7-84) is a consequence of the unknown bias crror A B ,
and E q ~ ~ a t i o(7-84)
n can be compared with Equation (7-66). The Ridge cstimate
of Equation (7-83) is

PR is the Ridge matrix generalization of the Ridge scalar paramcter K

That is, PR is a p x p diagonal matrix which permits a different Ridge parameter

K , to optimally selected for each variate P,. The expectation of kR is E [ ~ R ]=
G.HTHB + G , H T M where G , H T H B = B - G,PRB. The bias of kR is BIAS
[ Q R ] = - G , P K B + G , H ~ Q It . can be seen that there is an additional bias term,
G . H T h B , which as a result of the s l ~ r i r l k q properties
r of G,, that offsets the inflation
of A B owing to the effects of GDOP. Using Equation (7-85), the MSE of fiR is

In Equation (7-87), the second and fourth terms are a result of the unknown bias
error A B . It remains to determine the range of K , values for which

Equations (7-84) and (7-87) are used to transform Equation (7-88) into its ca-
nonical coordinates using = P T e and & I = Q T U where PT and Q T are p x p
and n x n matrices, respectively. The singular value decomposition (SVD) of H is
performed, yielding H X P = Q " x " Z t ' x ~ ( P T ) p where
xp X is n x p diagonal, the
elements of which are the eigenvalues of H denoted by 6.
Moreover, H T H =
P Z T X P T where X T Z is p x p diagonal with elements h i . At this point, the trans-
formations are performed, and Equation (7-88) is rewritten in terms of its canonical
coordinates

The preceding inequality becomes the result of Hoerl and Kennard [I9701 when Aai
= 0. T h e preceding inequality is satisfied for each i if
456 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

Finally, the preceding inequality can be cast into the following form:

The following four possibilities can be identified for ~i > 0: a ~ K -

i 2a2 < 0.

1. a 2 < 0, a, > 0. In this case K; > 0 does not exist such that Equation (7-90)
is satisfied and K; = 0, the value for the LMS estimate.
2. a2 > 0, a , < 0. In this case Equation (7-90) is satisfied for ~i > 0.
3. a2 < 0, al < 0. Here, Equation (7-90) is satisfied by large K;.
4. a2 > 0, a, > 0. Here, Equation (7-90) is satisfied by small ~ i .
The preceding restrictions on K, must be met in order for the Ridge estimator to
have a smaller MSE than the LMS estimator whenever a bias component A B , as
well as a variance component u2 is inflated by multicollinearity. Equation (7-80)
upon using Equation (7-90) becomes

Writing Equation (7-76) for k = 1 and replacing P; - ' by P R yields the recursive
Ridge estimator. Because it is not known in practice, P is replaced by its estimate
bOLSin Equation (7-90). Consequently, each K , is stochastic and should be specified
by confidence bounds [Oman, 19811.

Matched Models versus Minimum MSE Models. When both the model and
the estimator tnatch the process that generares the data, the situation is one of having
an optimum unbiased estimator. With the Kaln~anfilter optimization technique, the
filter is adaptively tuned until its innovations (residuals) become w h i t e . When the
Kalman filter is matched to the model, there results the best linear unbiased estimator
(BLUE). Still, it may happen that the MSE of the estimates is not the smallest
obtainable in the class of both unbiased and biased estimators. The Ridge estimator,
which is a biased estimator, is deliberately not matched in order to obtain a smaller
MSE in the case of an ill-conditioned model data matrix, as occurs when G D O P
is present. The following shows how the initial values of the process covariance
matrix Q are selected Ridge parameters K , xvhich minimize the MSE of the estimates
el such that the MSE of the matched optimun~unbiased Kalman filter is larger than
the MSE of the biased Kalman filter in the prescncc of strong ~nulticollinearityor
GDOP.

Selecfing Q o . Given what Kalman filters can do, it may at first appear that
GDOP effects in the form ofmulticollinearity can be reduced by tuning theestimator
process covariance Q,, in Equation (7-73) or Equation (7-85). While such a pro-
cedure identifies Qo and may match the model when G D O P does not occur, it will
not optimally reduce the effects of GDOI' when this does occur because it is not
Sec. 7.5 Advanced Navigation System Design 457

possible to minimize multicollinearity effects by observing the innovations (see

Equation (7-79)). Tuning Q,, is a matter of minimizing the MSE of the estimates
because the effects of G D O P only appear in the parameter estimates fi. Herein lies
the essence of bias estimation, One deliberately mismatches the estimator (biased)
to obtain a smaller MSE. A procedure is suggested in which a Qo is selected such
that a minimum MSE estimate is achieved. In the absence of any multicollinearity,
the estimator will bc matched to the process covariance Q,, when Q,, is identified
by the t ~ r t i i r ! yprocess. However, should the effects of multicollinearity be greater
than the cffccts of a mismatched model, the following procedure is employed. The
first step is to idcntify QO and determine A, following which one calculates =
~'fi. In the next step, one uses each ci, in Equation (7-90) to obtain K , for i = 1,
2, 3, . . . , p. Finally, P R is formed using Equation (7-86), after which one sets
Qrl = P K .

Discussion. The method presented previously for reducing the effects of

G D O P in GPS navigation systems is based on incorporating Ridge Regression into
the GPS receiver signal processor. In Kelly [1989], using computer simulations to
compare MSE performance of an ordinary LMS signal processor with one using
Ridge Regression, the theory has been shown to be capable of substantially reducing
the bias and variance inflation caused by GDOP. Moreover, in addition to being
applicable to GPS, the technique can also be applied to any position-fix NAVAID,
for example, DMEIDME, LORAN-C, and JTIDS relative navigation.

7.5.2 Integrated GPSllNS

This section is based on the notable paper by Mickelson and Carrico [I9891 of
Rockwell International Corporation. Using a low-grade IMU and a single-channel
GPS receiver, it is possible to obtain accurate flight control and navigation data.
Such an arrangement is meant to take advantage of the long-term position accuracy
of the GPS data and the short-term dynamic accuracy of the IMU. A number of
integration methods can be utilized, as described in [Buechler and Foss, 1987;
Knight, 1987; Nielson et al., 1986; Tazartes and Mark, 19881. All of these can
generally be placed into one of two categories: those that make direct use of GPS
position data to periodically update an INS Kalman filter estimate of I M U errors,
o r those that utilize GPS LOS satellite measurement data to update the INS Kalman
filter. While the first method is more easily integrated into existing INS systems,
the GPS-filtered data can limit the performance of the INS Kalman filter. Using the
second technique, the GPS and INS Kalman filters are able to operate independently
on primary measurement data, so that each filter can be optimally tuned. An in-
tegrated GPSIINS system has been developed and flight tested that utilizes an LOS
integration technique. By using a data coupling algorithm, the GPS receiver is able
to perform all the usual GPS data processing functions such as satellite selection,
ephemeris computation, and satellite data base management, perform the pseudo-
range and delta-range satellite measurement, and transfer the raw LOS data to the
458 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

INS without difficult timing constraints. The use of modular hardware in con-
junction with the inde~cndentGPS and INS Kalman filters allows the integrated
system to provide reversionary modes to GPS- or IMU-alone navigation for added
redundancy.

GPSIINS Kalman filter system design. The high dynamics tracking

capability of the integrated GPSIINS demonstration system is a result of a tightly
coupled design that provides INS velocity aiding to the GPS. As illustrated in Figure
7-10a, the system configuration features a GPS and strapdown IMU, which provides
the basic sensor data to the navigation computer. Through a control and display
unit, the user is able ro control system modes, initialize INS position and heading,
and view selected system output data. A Collins SCR-100 single-channel GPS re-
ceiver tracks both the code and carrier phase to develop pseudo-range and delta-
range measurements. T o enhance its dynamic tracking capability and jamming im-
munity, the SCR-100 accepts 10-Hz velocity-aiding data from the INS. Navigation
is accomplished by proccssi~igthe GPS measurements and velocity aiding through
an eight-state Kalrnan filter. The INS is able to construct the new pseudo-range and
delta-range measurements through the use of a resid~raldata block output (presented
later). In this \yay, the GI'S rneasurerncnts are provided to the navigation cornputcr
without first b e ~ n gprocessed through the GPS Kalman filter. T h e result is that both
the GI's Kalman filtcr and the GI'SIINS Kalman filters operate indepcndcntly. Thc
tlvo Collins %ST-2 multiscnsors included in the strapdown I M U provrde the linear
acceleration and angular rate mcasurcmcnts required to inlplcmcnt the strapdown
INS function. The interface from the strapdown I M U to the navigation computer
is an RS-332 data link that transmits binary data rcprcsc~~titig incrcniental vclocity
and incrcmcntal angle. Also input to the computcr are the temperatures of the in-
di\~idualniultiscnsors. allo\ving for con~pcnsationof the primary multisensor errors.
The strapdo~vnINS and the GL'SIINS Kal~nanfiltcr calculations are perfornicd by
the navigation cornputcr. Scvcral ancillary functions also p r o ~ ~ i d cbyd the navigation
cornputcr include a C D U interface, data recording, and velocity aiding to the GPS
set. Thc INS cornputcr program performs f u ~ ~ c t i o at
n sthree different iteration rates.
The basic strapdolvn INS algorithms, which maintain the body to level axis trans-
formation rnatris and transfortn the body axis vclocity increments to a locally level
coordinate frame, are performed at a ratc of 50 Hz. The basic INS navigation al-
gorithnls are performed a t an iteration ratc of 10 Hz. The Kalnian filtcr computations
arc pcrforlncd a t a ratc of 1 Hz.
The principal clcrnent in the design of thc integrated GI'SIINS system is the
Kalnran filter. A t\venty-statc Kalnialr filtcr was sclected and i~nplcmentedalong

- - ~-

Figure 7-10 (a) Low-Cost Intcgratcd Gl'SIINS Systcrn Configuration (b) GI'S-
IMU Ir~tegration(c) K a l ~ n a nFilter Starc L'cctor (d) Lo\\-Cost Ir~tcgratcdGI'S'INS
Sy5tcn1 Cor~figuration(c) Yurna Flight Tcst Configuration (1) INS CEP vs. Timc
Aftcr l<csct (l:ro~,l /.\fickrlron a~rdCani[o. I Y X Y I ujirh prrtt~irsios.frtl~t~
Rorku,rll lfrrcr-
t ~ t ~ r i o t ~Gorp.
(t/ 1
 GPS MEAS
Lq.b AIDED GPS OUTPUT
ANTENNA RECEIVER INS AIDINO COMPUTER DATA

.
OPS RECEIVER NAVIGATION
I I COMPUTER

m I GPS MEASUREMENT RESIDUALS

i
I
DECOUPLING

IMU PREDICTED
I GPS MEAS

UNEQF. 8 STATE LINEQF-

SIGHT SIGHT
A
I IMU FILTER CORRECTIONS I 4I
I I

I I

/ ERROR STATE / UNITS ( INITIAL

COVAR
(STD. DEV.)
I RANDOM
WALK
(Unit~)~/sec
I
X, position error meters 1000. 0.
YL position error meters 1WO. 0.
Vertical error meters 1WO. 0.
XL velocity error m/s 10. 0.
YL velwity error m/s 10. 0.
Vert. vel. error m/s 10. 0.
XL psi radians 0.005 1.e-9
YL psi radians 0.005 1.e-9
Azimuth error radians 0.010 1.e-9
Baro altimeter' meters 100. 10.
Clock bias meters 100. 0.
Clock drift m/s 10. 0.0002
x gyro drift rad/s 30.e-6 0.063e-12
y gyro drift rad/s 30.e-6 0.063e-12
z gro drift rad/s 30.e-6 0.063e-12
x accel. bias m/s/s 0.010 0.064e-6
y accel, bias m/s/s 0.010 0.064e-6
z accel. bias m/s/s 0.010 0.064e-6
x accel. scl fact 0.005 167.e-12
z accel. scl fact 0.005 167.e-12

1 Altimeter measurement not included.

(C)
 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

CDU

I
r---- L A 1
I SEVS
I
t--a
I
+---,-+',
,as
L----A

STRAPDOWN
IMU
II AHRS ALL{ DADS I
L---J L--- J

NOTES: 1. AAMP COMPUTER PERFORMS STRAPDOWN INS

CALC AND OPSllNS KALMAN FILTER.
2. DASHED LINES DEPICT ADDITIONAL
INTERFACES USED FOR SYSTEM TEST.
3. SEVS SIMULATION AND EVALUATION SYSTEM.

FRPA-3
CIPS ANTENNA CDU

DlSPLAYllNlT DATA
ANTENNA

CASSETTE
RECORDER

AHRS

(E)
Figure 7-10 (Continued)

with thc strapdown ~~lcchanization algorithm in thc navigation computcr. Simu-

lation rcsults were confirmed by mobilc ground tcsts of the intcgratcd system. Figure
7-10b shows the rclation of thc turcnty-state Kalman filtcr to the overall system.
Thc csscntial intcrfacc bctwccn thc GI's navigation function and the navigation
computcr is provided by the rcsidual data block. A data-dccoupling algorithm in
thc navigation colnputcr uscs this data to gcncrate the IMU measurement residual.
Sec. 7.5 Advanced Navlgatlon System Design

INS
CEP

PREDICTED
CEP FOR
TlME CEP TTRWECTORY X4

(F)

Figure 7-10 (Continued)

That which defines the twenty-state Kalman filter used to integrate the GPS and
INS measurements includes an error state vector, state transition matrix, measure-
ment matrix, initial covariance matrix, system noise matrix, and the measurement
variance. Figure 7-10c defines the error state vector, initial covariance matrix (in
the form of standard deviations), and the system noise matrix random walk values.
The state transition matrix is based on classical inertial error models with the fol-
lowing exceptions: Coriolis coupling terms are not included in the velocity error
states, and diurnal coupling terms are not included among the position error and
psi error states. Although these terms were omitted to reduce computer loading, it
has been shown that the resulting effect on performance for this class of inertial
sensors is negligible. Finally, the coupling of the body-referenced inertial sensor
errors to psi and velocity error states were correctly modeled.
At the start of every 1-sec Kalman filter iteration, the estimated position,
462 Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

velocity, and misalignment (psi) errors are incorporated into the Corresponding
whole-value variables. Multisensor error states (gyro bias, accelerometer bias, an;
scale factor errors) have been propagated into misalignment and velocity errors prior
to controlling their effects. Flight test results show that employing such a scheme
to control accelerometer errors induces a velocity error in the GPS set proportional
to the acceleration error. Altimeter measurement errors are taken into account b,.
the inclusioi~of a baroaltimeter bias state in the twenty-state Kalman filter design'.
The Kalman filter employs a special feature for incrementing the position covariance
terms as a new satellite is included in the four-satellite constellation used for nay.
igation. As a consequence of the inclusion of a new satellite, therc is a step chanSC
in the steady-state GPS position error owing to a new satellite bias crror and nc\\.
G D O P . Increasing the position error covariance terms helps prevent this new error
from degrading the inertial crror states.

Data-decoupling algorithm. An algorithm known as data decoupling

Dosh and Yakos [I9861 removes the estimation effects of the GPS Kalman filtcr
from the measurement residual data, thus allowing the integrated navigation filtcr
to receive "raw" GPS measurement data. Using this decoupling concept, currcnt
and future GPS navigation soft~varewill be able to provide the LOS data suitable
for host navigation filter implemcntation. Whilc the cxtcrnal ineasurclnent prepro-
cessing can on the one hand be minimized, the flexibility on both sides ofthe interface
betwccn the GPS and the integration computer is maximized. Navigational appli-
cations have frequently requircd access to dircct LOS GI's rccei\wr data, enabling
a central navigation computer to update its o\vn systcm cstimatcs independent of
the GPS navigation proccss. Unfortunately, proccssing dircct ra\v data in the cx-
tcrnal nccessitatcs critical lntcrfacc timing in addition to thc duplication of a sig-
nificant anlount of rcccivcr soft\\,arc. Morco\,cr, it docs not pcr~nitthc aiding re-
quircd for scqucntial trackins during state-3 (undctcctcd carrier) opcration and
highly dynamic nlaneuvcring. The equivalent pcrforn~anccwith a minimum of
complcxity can bc obtained by using the proccsscd GPS rcsidual data.
In thc past, the GI's position and velocity outputs havc bccn used by integration
schemes bctwcerl Gl'S receivers and ccntralizcd navigation computers. In keeping
with this approach, the currcnt user equipment rcquircrncnts call for stand-alone
navigation capability and thc output of GI's position and velocity. T h e crrors in
these cstimatcs are variably tiinc corrclatcd. Conscqucntly, thc fccdback time con-
stant of thc cxtcrnal systcm filtcr using GI's position and vclocity data must bc
longcr in ordcr that thcsc crrors arc rclativcly uncorrclatcd, random whitc noise.
Thc implemcntation of data dccoupling rcquircs thc following algorithnl In
the host vchiclc navigation computer.
(1) Statc 5 (Codc and Carricr Track)
I'seudo-rang, p'
r ' = I S - P'I
p'=p+r-r.'+b-6'
Sec. 7.5 Aduanced Naulgatlon System Design

Delta rangc, Ag'

A = r' - I S -
- a - ' +
At*VrI
Ap' = p + Ar - A r t + At(d - d') '
(2) State 3 (Code Track Only)
-
I'scudo-rang, p'
r1=IS-P'I
p'=.p+r-r'+b-b'
(3) (from CI'S)
-p, mcasuremcnt residual data
-r, A- scalar range and change in range
S , AS satellite position and delta position
b, d clock bias and drift
(4) - - host navigation)
(from
P', V' vehicle position and velocity
b', d' clock bias and drift
also At is the constant value, delta-range dwell time
The preceding algorithm can be used in state-3 operation, when the GPS carrier is
not detected and delta range is not measured. The pseudo-range residual in GPS
state 3 is not generated in the software, being rather a product of the code tracking
loop. This is only significant to the host vehicle insofar as delta range cannot be
used to update the navigation estimate. In those applications in which GPS clock
errors are-not estimated~bythe external filter, the bias and drift adjustment terms
can be ignored.

T e s t s and results. Verification of system operation under simulated dy-

namic conditions was established through the use of system software tests in addition
to laboratory performance tests. Figure 7-10d shows the system configuration used
to conduct these tests. The simulated measurements consisting of the GPS RF signals
and the incremental angle and velocity counts of an IMU procedure strapdown INS
navigation results are in line with the GPS navigation results. Subsequent to per-
forming the necessary software validation studies, numerous GPSIINS filter per-
formance runs were conducted to determine the system response to specific IMU
errors. Errors modeled by the Kalman filter as well as unmodeled errors constituted
the simulated errors. It was concluded as a result of these performance tests that
good navigation results in IMU error state estimates would result from any expected
IMU error.
A series of flight tests aboard a Rockwell Sabre 50 jet aircraft was undertaken
to evaluate the performance of the system under the following conditions: (1) GPS
tracking four satellites and updating the INS filter; (2) GPS tracking three satellites,
incorporating bar0 altitude data, and updating the INS filter; (3) in-flight calibration
and alignment o f the I M U using GPS data; and (4) unaided GPS navigation. The
system configuration used in flight tests is shown in Figure 7-10e. It has been
demonstrated in flight tests that an accurate navigation solution together with trans-
4&r Navigation and Guidance Filtering Design Chap. 7

fer alignment capabilities can be provided by the integration of a low-cost strapdown

IMU and a single-channel GPS receiver. The system navigation solution that results
from the optimal tuning of the GPSIINS Kalman filter is more accurate than what
can be obtained with GPS alone. It is possible to obtain sufficient alignment and
calibration accuracy of the IMU through numerous flight trajectories to yield the
INS accuracy illustrated in Figure 7-10f. For the majority of tactical missile appli-
cations, in which terminal seekers are used, this is sufficient. The stability of INS
velocity aiding is such that a single-channel GPS receiver could reliably acquire and
track satellite signals on a dynamic host vehicle. Finally, GPS operation can be
extended by the utilization of bar0 aiding to periods of thee-satellite coverage with
a minimal degradation of accuracy.
 Advanced Guidance
System Design
This chapter presents the analytical development of various guidance approaches
used for advanced NGC systems. Where they are applicable, analyses and numerical
techniques are also discussed, based on AGNC [1986(a)-(c)], as they relate to NGC
system problems. The underlying theme throughout the chapter is to: (1) formulate
the problem, (2) propose the model and solution, and (3) compare applicable tech-
niques.
Two dominant tasks for designing an advanced guidance system are terminal
accuracy and range enhancement as depicted in Figure 8-1, which shows the task
flow and structure of the advanced guidance system design. Figure 8-1 also shows
the order of presentation of the material contained therein. The aerodynamic effi-
ciency is generally not considered in terminal guidance formulations. Many practical
terminal guidance laws are presented in Sections 8.1 to 8.5. Improvement of seeker
model (Section 8.2), terminal guidance filter (Sections 8.2 and 8.8), and radome
compensation (Sections 8.2 and 8.4) must be considered in the terminal guidance
system design. An optimal controller with radome compensation (see Section 8.4)
is designed to obtain terminal guidance performance enhancements in the presence
of the worst-case radome error environment for high-altitude, high-speed threats.
An adaptive guidance is sometimes used in real time for a tactical missile guidance
system since the dynamic conditions for an air interception vary drastically during
flight and the tracking errors are unknown a priori. The aerodynamic efficiency is
a dominant feature in the range-enhancement guidance law design, thus leading to
 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap.

Classical Gu~danceSystem

+
(Chap. 61

Advanced Gutdance System

4
+
Terminal Accuracy
I
Range Enhancement
~erminaiGuidances
(Table 8-1 8i Sec. 8.1)
I
Terminal Guidance
Seeker Model Filter
o Mtnimum Fuel Consumption Other Midmvne
(Chap. 7.2)
o Combined Weighted Minimum Guidance Schemes
improvement
tSec. 8.2) (Secs. 8.2 & 8.8)
Fuel & M~nimumTime
(Sec. 8.71
I (Sec. 6.6) I

+ Radome Ermr
OtherTeminal lib^^^^^ and
+
Guidance Laws mpcnsalion Midcourse Guidance
(Set. 8.3)
4
Adaptive
(Sec. 8.41
+
Optimal Autopilot
Command vs. Seml-Active
Homing Guidance
(Sec. 8.5)
System Analysts
(Sec. 8.8)

4
Guidance
(Bopk 4)
Controller
(Book3) I Pulsed Mota Control
(Sec. 8.9)

+
Improved Time-to-Go Estimator J ~ ~ ~
+
c],,~~..~,
, weather
~ ~ .
+
Multimcde Guidance Appllcai#ons
(Scc. 8.10) Effects on Guided Weapons (Chap. 6.8. Sec. 8.12. Book 4)
i fSec. 8.111 I

Implementation Issues
(Scc. 8.13)

Figure 8-1 Advanced Guidance System Design T a s k Flow and S t r u c t u r e

a very complex design problem. Perturbation approaches (Section 8.7) are used to
simplify this nonlinear optimal control problem so that the resulting guidance law
is nearly optimal and sufficiently simple for midcourse guidance application. Tra-
jectory shaping (Scction 8.6) is designed such that the flight vehicle follows a desired
trajectory that opti~nizcscertain performance critcria. The major contributors to
terminal accuracy for practical dcsign considcrations of a guided missile include
heading error at handovcr, scekcr itracking noise and bias, flight control system
(FCS) bandw~dth,and radornc effects. Thcrcforc, the trajectory shaping guidance
combined with a rnidcoursc guidancc filtcr (Scction 8.8) must be designed to reduce
the hcading error at handovcr. The pulscd motor control technique considered in
Section 8.9 cnhanccs thc rockct motor efficiency to increase the missile performance
by maximizi~lgthc tcrminal vclocity. Thc timc-to-go information (Scction 8.10) is
the dominant factor in dctcrn~iningthc succcss of advanced guidance applications.
A nlultimode guidancc systcm (Scction 8.12) nccds to be considered for combining
multiple-guidance systcms to overcome jamming, clutter, and adverse weather ef-
Chap. 8 Advanced Gufdance System Design 467

fects. Thcsc cffects arc presentcd in Section 8.11. Finally, the resulting advanced
guidance systcrn rlceds to bc implcmentcd (Scction 8.13).
The prcccding design tasks (Figure 8-1) arc pcrforlncd in an orderly manner
with the outcon~cof each task cvaluated via analysis and simulation. A very im-
portant task in the preceding systcrn design is to perform analysis including missile
system analysis (Chapters 2 and 3) and guidance stability analysis (Book 1 of the
series). 1)csign algorithms presented in this book are not sufficiently advanced for
designing adaptivc guidance systems. Hence, actual adaptivc guidance system design
is not discussed in this book but is presented in Book 4 of the series. Further details
of multimodc guidance and radomc compensation techniques arc also presented in
Book 4 of the series.

Example 8-1: Advanced air-to-airmissile (AAM) NGC technology.

This example provides an assessment of current AAM guidance and control tech-
nology based on Cloutier et al. [1988]. Its purpose is to review the progress that
has been made over the years in AAM guidance and control technology, highlighting
the more useful concepts and idenrifying those areas in need of research. Over the
past fifteen years, much research has been conducted to improve AAM guidance
and control performance. The areas spanned by this research include target state
estimation, target acceleration modeling, target tracking, target maneuver detection,
guidance law development, and bank-to-turn autopilot design. As a result, advances
have been made in the areas of adaptive filtering, nonlinear filtering, parameter
identification, modern control formulation, adaptive control, dual control, robust
adaptive control, and differential game theory.
In the problem of a modern tactical AAM that is attempting to intercept ma-
neuverable aircraft, there is the estimation of target motion, the generation of guid-
ance commands to optimally steer the missile toward target intercept, and the control
of the coupled, nonlinear, multivariable, uncertain dynamics of the AAM. Each
portion of the problem, that is, the estimation portion, the guidance portion, and
the control portion, is inherently nonlinear and time-varying and all three combine
to form a highly complex integrated system. A simplified block diagram of an
advanced AAM system is given in Figure 8-2. Target information obtained from
a seeker is processed by a modern estimation filter which assumes a target accel-
eration model to obtain estimates of relative missile-to-target position, velocity, and
acceleration. An extended Kalman filter (EKF) is one such type of estimation filter.
A guidance law based on modern control theory uses the state estimates and a t,
estimate until intercept to produce a commanded acceleration. The autopilot con-
verts this commanded input into fin commands for the actuators based on airframe
aerodynamic characteristics and sensed missile-body angular rates and linear accel-
erations. The resulting motion produces new missile dynamics which close the three
feedback loops. Air-to-air guidance consists of the midcourse, terminal, and end-
game phases, as described in Chapter 6. Midcourse guidance begins at the time of
launch and ends at seeker acquisition. During this phase, an onboard inertial nav-
igation system ~ r o v i d e sestimates of missile position, velocity, and acceleration.
 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap,

ADVANCED
GUIDUICE

Figure 8-2 Air-to-Air Missile Block

AUmslLOl Diagram (From [Cloulier el al., 19881 ujirb
prnnissionfro~nA A C C )

Periodic estimates of target position and velocity from the launch aircraft may also
be available. After the seeker acquires the target, terminal guidance is initiated. Noisy
measurements of LOS angles, range. and range rate are provided by an active seeker.
The last second of tcrminal guidance is referred to as the cl~dgame.It is worth
treating as a separate guidance phasc since targct maneuvers arc most effective at
that time. The reasons for this include the finite missile airframc time response
(typically 0.25 to 0.50 sec) as wcll as the target state estimator time response (on
the order of 0.50 scc for a typical EKF). The implication of this is that a well-timed
target evasive maneuver has a good probability of defeating the integrated NGC
system.

8.1 ADVANCED GUIDANCE LAWS

The principles of controlling guided missiles are wcll known to control engineers,
as discussed in Chaptcr 6. Sincc the basic principles werc extct~sivelycovered in
Locke [1955], numerous control techniques have been developed to improve missile
performance and to acco~nmodatcenvironmental variations. PNG schemcs are em-
ployed by most high-spccd missiles today for intercepting airborne targets during
the terminal phasc. In I'NG, a fixed inertial orientation of the LOS between the
missile and the targct is maintained. Under steady wind conditions and the as-
sumption of instantaneous nlissilc response, I'NG exhibits optimal performance
Chap. 8 Advanced Guidance System Design 467

fects. These effects arc prescntcd in Section 8.11. Finally, the resulting advanced
guidance system nccds to be implcmcnted (Scction 8.13).
The prcccding design tasks (Figure 8-1) arc performed in an orderly manner
with the outcome of each task evduatcd via analysis and simulation. A vcry im-
portant task in the preceding systcm design is to perform analysis including missile
systcm analysis (Chapters 2 and 3) and guidance stability analysis (Book 1 of the
series). Ilesign algorithnls presented in this book are not sufficicntly advanccd for
designing adaptive guidance systems. Hcnce, actual adaptive guidance system dcsign
is not discussed in this book but is prcsentcd in Book 4 of the series. F ~ ~ r t h details
er
of multimodc guidance and radomc compensation techniques arc also prcscnted in
Book 4 of the series.

Example 8-1: Advanced air-to-airmissile (AAM) NGC technology.

This example provides an assessment of current AAM guidance and control tech-
nology based on Cloutier et al. [1988]. Its purpose is to review the progress that
has been made over the years in AAM guidance and control technology, highlighting
the more useful concepts and identifying those areas in need of research. Over the
past fifteen years, much research has been conducted to improve AAM guidance
and control performance. The areas spanned by this research include target state
estimation, target acceleration modeling, target tracking, target maneuver detection,
guidance law development, and bank-to-turn autopilot design. As a result, advances
have been made in the areas of adaptive filtering, nonlinear filtering, parameter
identification, modern control formulation, adaptive control, dual control, robust
adaptive control, and differential game theory.
In the problem of a modern tactical AAM that is attempting to intercept ma-
neuverable aircraft, there is the estimation of target motion, the generation of guid-
ance commands to optimally steer the missile toward target intercept, and the control
of the coupled, nonlinear, multivariable, uncertain dynamics of the AAM. Each
portion of the problem, that is, the estimation portion, the guidance portion, and
the control portion, is inherently nonlinear and time-varying and all three combine
to form a highly complex integrated system. A simplified block diagram of an
advanced AAM system is given-in Figure 8-2. ~ a r ~information
e t obtained from
a seeker is processed by a modern estimation filter which assumes a target accel-
eration model to obtain estimates of relative missile-to-target position, velocity, and
acceleration. An extended Kalman filter (EKF) is one such type of estimation filter.
A guidance law based on modern control theory uses the state estimates and a t,
estimate until intercept to produce a commanded acceleration. The autopilot con-
verts this commanded input into fin commands for the actuators based o n airframe
aerodynamic characteristics and sensed missile-body angular rates and linear accel-
erations. The resulting motion produces new missile dynamics which close the three
feedback loops. Air-to-air guidance consists of the midcourse, terminal, and end-
game phases, as described in Chapter 6. Midcourse guidance begins at the time of
launch and ends at seeker acquisition. During this phase, an onboard inertial nav-
igation system provides estimates of missile position, velocity, and acceleration.
 Sec. 8.1 Advanced Guldance Laws 4%

with constant-velocity target. However, this scheme is not effective in the presence
of turbulence, target maneuvers, and finite missile response, and often leads to
unacceptable miss distances under these conditions. Earlier guidance techniques
worked well for targets that are large, slow, or geographically fixed. However,
these techniques are no longer effective when faced with targets that are small, fast,
and highly maneuverable. Furthermore, jamming, clutter, and weather effects lead
to multimodc guidance requirements, as depicted in Figure 8-1. Thus, in formu-
lating a guidance law, these characteristics need to be considered to improve the
intcrcept performance. T o intercept targets with these characteristics, a prediction
term for the target acceleration needs to bc computed so that the missile can fly
toward a predicted intercept position instead of attempting to continuously drive
the LOS rate to zero. This scheme is termed advanced guidance law.
For the preceding intercept problem, it is not a trivial matter to determine an
advanced guidance law. Later in this section, several design approaches are used
based on recently developed algorithms that deviate from the conventional PNG
approach. They are classified as advanced guidance laws in Figure 8-3 and Table
8-1 which show all the guidance laws presented in this chapter. Classical guidance
laws have been presented in Chapter 6. Sections 8.1 to 8.5 present the advanced
guidance law design which includes an elegant yet practical approach based on PNG
and employs modern control techniques for improvement and also makes full use
of the existing guidance law and system simulation experience. Advanced guidance
law design techniques are applied to interceptors. In addition, a set of unique and
practical approaches is developed for application to the terminal guidance problem.

8.1.1 Optimal Guidance Law Survey

Current highly maneuverable fighters pose a challenge for contemporary missiles

employing classical guidance techniques to intercept these high-performance targets.
Hence, advanced control theory needs to be applied to a missile guidance system

Guidance Laws

f
Classical Guidance Laws
f
Modern Linear Guidance Laws
+
Modern Nonlinear Guidance Laws
(Chap. 6) (Tabe 8-1 & Secs. 8.1-8.5) (Sees. 8.6 & 8.7)

L4
Multimode Guidance
(Chap. 6.8, Sec. 8.12, Book 4)
Figure 8-3 Guidance Law Classification
Pulsed Motor Control
(Sec. 8.9)

Adaptive Guidance
(Book 4)
 470 Aduanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

TABLE 8-1 ADVANCED TERMINAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM

1st: 1st Order Filter 2nd: 2nd Order Filter 3rd: 3rd Order Filter 4th: 4th Order Filter
APN: Augmented Proponional Navigation OGL: Optimal Guidance Law PNG: Proponional Navigation Guidance
o: Guidance information needed A Guidance information op~ional
*: Combined Seeker-Guidance Filtering in a Complementary LOS Rate Estimator
t: Combined Seeker-Guidance Filtering in a Complementary LOS Angle and LOS Rate Estimator

t o improve its performance. Various authors have considered implementing ad-

vanced guidancc and control techniques in the analysis o f the terminal guidance
phase of tactical nlissiles [Anderson, 1981; Gilbert. 1967; Kriegcr, 1981; Lin, 1983
(;I); Lin and Yuch, 1984(a); I'astrick ct al., 1981; Spcycr and Hull, 1980; Stallard.
1'980. 1983: York and Pastrick, 19771. Both linear and nonlinear d y r l a ~ ~ i nlodclsic
can bc uscd in the design o f the guidat~ccla\v. T l ~ former
c is uscd in this section t o
grncratc thc guidancc law. Optinla1 control-based techniques have bcctl uscd m u c h
Inorc since the 1960s. T h i s is cnforccd by the d c v c l o p t ~ ~ eot f~ t11c
t L Q G technique
\vhich involves an L Q R with its dual analog, Kalnlan filtcring, and the fccdback-
fort11 solution. Since then, alnlost all work in this area has been based o n the linear
modcl dynamics with quadratic costs and additive Gaussian noise.
l'astrick ct al. I19811 performed a survey of short-range tcrt~linalguidancc laws
dc\yclopcd u p t o 1979. T h e scpararion theory for cot~tinuous-time guidance and
Sec. 8.1 Advanced Gufdance Laws 471

navigation assuming linear dynamics and measurcn~cntsis proven in Potter [1964].

The results were extcndcd to discrete-time models. Tung [1965], Templeman [1965],
and McAllistcr and Schiring [I9651 uscd impulsive velocity corrections with lin-
earized dynamic models and tcrminal constraints to apply optimal control theory
to thrust-vector control in deriving several laws. Sensitivity was considered in the
process. Linear missile models were considered [Rang, 1966; Rishcl, 19671 where
the quadratic form was minimized to achieve a guidance law using statc feedback.
Gaussian noise was incorporated in the model by Rishcl [1967]. A Kalrnan filter
was also uscd to generate statc cstirnatcs, and the resulting guidance law was com-
pared with thosc of the pursuit and 1'NG schcn~es.The stochastic naturc of the
problem was expanded [Bashein and Neuman, 19681 where a linear fecdback guid-
ance law was obtained that ex~licitlvaccounted for model uncertainties. O n the
other hand, a linearized perturbation model about a nominal trajectory was used
[Cunningham, 19681 to obtaln a fecdback guidance law.
Dickson and Garber [I9691 presented another linear-quadratic optimal control
formulation, where missile dynamics were modeled by a second-order nonhomo-
geneous differential equation. Solutions to the optimal controller for a missile with
autopilot lag defined by two discrete-time constants is presented in Williams [1969].
Terminal guidance methods requ~ringprecomputed reference trajectories were com-
pared in Andrus et al. [I9701 ~vhichinvolved expansion ofend constraints into Taylor
series about nominal values. Linear optimal control was used [Axelband and Hardy,
1969, 1970(a), (b)] to develop an extension of PNG. However, t, was required for
implementation, as with almost all linear schemes. An LQG approach was for-
mulated [Nazaroff, 19761 where very simplified missile dynamics were assumed,
but target acceleration and target acceleration rate terms were included. Stockum
and Weimer [I9761 generated an LQG guidance law based on the assumption of
exponentially correlated target accelerations. The feedback law obtained was anal-
ogous to time-varying PNG. A number of guidance and estimation schemes were
developed [Fiske, 19771 based on LQG formulations with varying degrees of model
complexity. The report gives closed-form solutions for the controllers where the
effects of model parameters on the gains can be examined. The LQG formulations
of guidance laws for air-to-air missiles are reviewed [Gonzalez, 1979(a)]in a similar
fashion. In Wei and Pearson [1978], a planar intercept system including closed-form
solutions to target velocity estimation and minimum energy control is presented.
Since 1979, additional guidance laws, both deterministic and stochastic, have been
proposed. Deterministic formulations were developed in Kim et al. [I9851 and An-
derson [1981]. The former derived a guidance law which relied on Pronav correction
to a predicted collision course. The latter compared differential game and linear
quadratic optimal guidance laws, concluding that differential game formulations are
less sensitive to target acceleration estimation errors than are optimal control al-
gorithms. Closed-form solutions of three-dimensional intercept system accounting
for target acceleration and the dynamics of the autopilot and airframe are derived
in Lin [1983(a)].
The objective of the homing guidance problem is to minimize the terminal
472 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

miss distance and control energy loss at the final time, and t o constrain the state
values during flight. Therefore, the general optimization problem in which miss-
distance, states, and control effort are considered becomes that of minimizing the
cost function

which is subject to the linear dynamic equation shown in Equation (3) of Table
2-1, where the state is represented by x, the control by u , the white-noise process
by w , and the weighting matrices by Sf,Q, and R. The typical state equation is
shown by Equation (2-60). This optimal control problem will have the following
form of controller:

Simulation is done on the performance obtained from the optimal guidance law
formulated as Equation (8-1). It is generally found to have better missdistance than
P N G or any classical guidance schemes [Lin, 1983(a); Pastrick et al., 19811. A mod-
ified technique is presented [Speyer et al., 19821 in which the implemented guidance
gains are based on linear-exponential Gaussian (LEG) theory, which is a generali-
zation of the LQG theory. This technique combined with an adaptive state estimator
produces an adaptive guidance law. ~pecificall~, an exponential cost function is to
be minimized, subject to the constraint posed by Equation (3) of Table 2-1, and is
+
o f the form p. exp[&/2] where p. is a real number and is a quadratic function
defined by Equation (8-la). The form of the optimal controller using LEG is the
same as that in Equation (8-lb). In fact, if = 0, LQG and LEG produce identical
controllers. When I*. # 0, the gains determined from LEG have an explicit depen-
dence on the error variance (in addition to state estimates) in contrast to the gains
determined from LQG. Hence, an improvement in the miss distance (by reducing
the tails in miss-distance distribution) over LQG is expected when guidance gains
based on the LEG theory are implemented. However, computationally the LEG
algorithm requires a tenfold increase in computer storage and a twofold increase in
execution time over the LQG algorithm in guidance applications [Speyer and Hull,
19801.
A number of guidance laws based on conventional LQG control principles
were compared [Riggs and Vergez, 19811 which found improved performance of
the LQG algorithms over PNG, especially when improved estimates of time to
intercept were available. The accuracy of the estimated tR determines the performance
of any realistic optimal control law in a missile application. The I, is calculated by
an estimate of the range between the target and missile and the rate of change of
this range, with the aid of a radar or other ranging devices. As long as the range
Sec. 8.1 Advanced Guldance Laws 473

and range-rate information are accurate, this process is carried out cfficicntly. How-
ever, this is not the case in many instances. More likely, the data are either covertly
contaminated by noise such as in the case of radar-jamming devices, or inadvertently
by the processing electronics. Thus, the estimate of the r, is adversely affected. This
leads to the degeneration ofthe optimal control, which in turn jeopardizes the missile
performance. A discussion of several aspects of the problem in terms of a realistic
missilc application can be found in Pastrick and York [1977]. Several authors also
provided computer algorithms for its solution, as well as closed-form results. Fiske
[1077] also attempts to esti~natethe !,and discusses the possibility of obtaining this
variable by an intensity-ranging technique. An improved t, estimator is derived in
Section 8.10. Several other problems associated with the implementation of optimal
guidance laws appear to be sensitive to initial conditions [York, 19781. In imple-
mentation o f optimal guidance, the system is required to be modeled accurately. It
is important to select correct numerical quantities for the elements of the weighting
matrices in the selected performance index, that is, Sf, Q, and R in Equation (8-
la). This task is shown to be difficult [Pastrick et a]., 19811.
The following are some related works summarized in Clouticr et al. I19881
and Evcrs et al. [1988]. Deterministic guidance formulation [Kim et al., 19851 is
derived that relics on PNG correction to a predicted collision course. For the angle-
only mcasurenlerit case, application of the separation principle yields guidancc laws
which show poor miss-distance performance. This is due to the fact that PNG, and
its L Q C variant, produce a homing collision course in which LOS rates are zeroed
by the controller. O n such a course, target position and velocity are unobservable
from the angle-only measurements. Anderson [I9811 enhanced the estimation pro-
cess by including the trace of the relative position covariance matrix in the guidance
law performance index.
Hull et al. [I9811 and Tseng et al. [I9841 reported on a similar guidance ap-
proach. In those studies, the inverse of the estimation error covariance matrix (the
Fisher information matrix) was used as an observability weighting term in a min-
imum control effort formulation. In the design phase, the weighting term is iter-
atively adjusted until the desired information-enhancing effect is achieved. Later
[Hull et al., 1985; Speyer et al., 19841 used the position terms of the Fisher infor-
mation matrix to form a scalar observability weighting term in the performance
index, yielding a less complex version of the maximum information guidance al-
gorithm. Balakrishnan [I9871 and Hull et al. [I9871 have combined these concepts
with L Q G theory to produce more refined dual-control algorithms. The former
includes the partial derivative of the trace of the estimation error covariance matrix
with respect to the control in the performance index. The latter allows individual
terms o f the observability grammian to be weighted separately and, as a further
modification [Hull et al., 19831, add a factor to enhance estimation during the earlier
stages of the trajectory.
T h e selection of the cost function, with the state equations viewed as con-
straints, theoretically determines the performance bounds of the resulting guidance
law solution. Because they neglect nonlinearities associated with acceleration limits
47.4 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

and delays in the autopilot response, many guidance formulations are suboptimal,
As presented in Book 4 of the series, the specification of performance in the guidance
algorithm does not necessarily translate into system performance, again because of
the system nonlinearities. For longer-range air-to-air intercepts, separate perfor-
mance requirements should be specified for each of the three distinct guidance phases:
midcourse, transition, and terminal. These might be a minimum-time criterion
(maximum F-pole) in midcourse, minimum control effort during transition, and
minimum miss distance with control effort penalities during terminal. Unfortu-
nately, merely combining these three distinct optimal solutions, each valid in an
appropriate time interval, is not likely to produce a truly optimal guidance law b\.
any criterion to be optimal in any overall sense. Best performance of such a system
requires ad hoc tuning based on Monte Carlo analysis in a nonlinear simulation.
Consequently, the specification of performance criteria in the guidance law design
~ h a s eusually relies heavily on engineering judgment and past experience. One al-
ternative, as mentioned in Evers et al. [1988],is to formulate a cost functional for
the entire intercept with the switching time between phases as an explicit control.

8.1.2 Analytical Solution of Optimal Filters

and Optimal Guidance Law

Analytical three-dimensional optimal guidance law. Lin [1983(a)]

presents detailed results of an analytical three-dimensional optimal guidance law.
LQG theory is used to design the guidance law which generates a pursuer accel-
eration command 14, in inertial axes. The resulting missile acceleration command in
inertial axes is then transformed to the pursuer acceleration command in body axes
A,,, A,.,, and A,, . Only the lateral acceleration components A,., and A,, are used to
form the guidance acceleration commands in S T T missile and to form the roll rate
command and normal and lateral acceleration commands in pitch and yaw channels
for BTT missile. The performance index to be minimized, subject to the twelve-
state guidance law equation shown in Equation (2-60). is

where R is the control \vcighting matrix in the LQG guidance scheme. If o111y 14
and the final relativc position in j arc penalized, assuming R is a diagonal matrix
--
and Sf is a block diagonal matrix, that is, Sf = block diag{C, 0, 0,~.0}\\.here C is
a 3 x 3 weighting matrix on miss distance along the x, y , and ~ d i r e c t i o n sin the
LQG guidance scheme, then applying thc techniques developed in Book 3 of the
series would yicld the following optirnal closed-loop guidance law

14 = (A/1:)[13, ~ ~ 1 D(tc,
3 , A), - D(t,?,a)]?, (, = timc to go = 1f - 1 (8-3
where A is the effective navigation ratio and D is the matrix function of scalars 2nd
Sec 8.1 Advanced Ouldance Laws

matrix h defined as

In Equation (8-3), 2 is the state estimate using the estimation techniques presented
in Chapter 4. As the FCS lag approaches zero, that is, as ox,o,,and o, in Equation
(2-62) approach infinity (this is equivalent to a perfect control loop where the
achieved missile acceleration approaches u ) , u becomes

where

As RC-I approaches zero (that is, either R or C-' approaches zero), A approaches
313. If X is assumed to be equal to zero, then

This guidance is known as an augmented proportional navigation (APN) with an ef-

fective navigation ratio of three. APN has been discussed in several papers where
the deviations from the constant-velocity assumptions inherent in the derivation are
taken into account. Arbenz [I9701 proposes a scheme that would make the closing
velocity heading rate proportional to the LOS rate. In addition, it develops a closed-
form expression for an APN law. In Siouris [I9741 an estimate of target acceleration
is added to the missile acceleration command to yield an APN law.

Example 8-2. Assuming

the solutions, Equations (8-5) and (8-6), become

u(t) = [-3tgl(3b + t:)][1, tgl]x(t)
 Advanced auidance System Design Chap. 8

Combined estimator-controller: Optimal filters and optimal guid-

ance law
Augmented Proportional Navigation ( A P N ) . The APN law for the hori-
zontal plane, from Equation (8-5), is

where u, denotes/the guidance command at the y-axis. Comparing Equation (8-12)

to the PNG lw Equation (6-17), the zero-effort miss expressed in the brackets of
Equation (8-12) contains an additional third term due to target maneuver ATy.
Optimal Guidance L a u ~ s . The generalized optimal guidance law for the
horizontal plane (see Figure 2-2) from the generalized three-dimensional guidance
law Equation (8-3) becomes
u, = g ~ y ,+ gzir + + g4Amy (8-13a)
where 14, denotes the guidance command at the y-axis and the guidance gains are:
Optimal A A
Guidance gl = y, gz = -, g3 = A D(t,, A,)
Law In 5 tb-'

Simplified
Optimal
Guidance gl , gz same as optimal guidance law;
Law

Optimal
Guidancc
Law g, , gz same as optimal guidance law;
with
0 ,= r-
)

D(I,, A,.)
g3 = A 3 g4 = 0
1;

APN gl, g~same as optimal guidance law;

1'N G gi ,gz same as optimal guidance law; g3 = g4 = O

where D(s,h) arc defined in Equation (8-4).
Sec. 8.1 Aduanced Guidance Laws 477

Optimal Guidance Law. Equations (8-13) present the general optimal linear
guidance law with A (given by Equation (8-4)) as a function of t,, missile FCS
bandwidth w,, and weighting matrix S f . The t, information, target maneuver band-
width A,, and w, are required for the implementation of this optimal guidance law.
The optimal guidance law, in which both the target and pursuer acceleration feed-
back gains have A, depends on the FCS dynamics-to further improve in the miss
distance over the optimal guidance law with($, = 9. Figure 8-4 shows the time
CC, '\

variation of the optimal guidance gain A in Equation (8-4) and presents several
values of thc penalty weighting RC-' and w, from Equation (2-62). In Figure
8-4a, the effect o f finite missile response is presented. A lower w, specifies a large
A value of the optimal gain in order to compensate for the effective FCS and airframe
lag in the pursuer acceleration. w, increases from top to bottom. As it increases, for
a constant RC-', A approaches a constant gain of 3. At intercept, A diminishes to
- ~

zero. However, in the case of RC-' + 0, A becomes very large as t, + 0.

Simplijied Optimal Guidance Law. The simplified optimal guidance law is

obtained from the optimal guidance law as the target maneuvers with a constant
AT,, which corresponds to A, = 0.

Optimal Guidance Law with w, = m. The missile in Figure 8-4b is pre-

sumed to have an instantaneous response to an acceleration command (that is, ne-
glecting the time lag of the missile dynamics, w, -,w). The value of RC-' decreases
from left to right. As the penalty weighting RC-' decreases, A (given by Equation
(8-6)) approaches a constant gain of 3.

APN Law. As RC-' approaches zero, A approaches a constant gain of 3.

The APN law is the special case (A, = 0 and w, = m) of the optimal guidance law.

PNG Law. As noted above, A + 3 for RC-' -+ 0 and w, += m. Furthermore,

if A, = 0, AT, = AT, = 0 , then the optimal guidance law is reduced to the standard
PNG law with A = 3.

wy+m

3 3

0 0
Time To Go tg Time To Go tg

Figure 8-4 Optimal Guidance Law Performance Tuned by RC-' and o,

478 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

Combined estimator.controller based o n the separation princi.

ple: optimal guidance system (OGS). In applications in which the missile
is attempting to intercept a highly maneuverable target, angle-only measurements
can generally be obtained during the homing phase. Classical guidance law onlv
requires the LOS angle, where use is made of lower-order guidance filter to suf-
ficiently attenuate noise effects. The implementation of an optimal guidance la\v
such as Equations (8-1) and (8-3) requires an estimate of the states of the relative
motion from the missile to the targct, as shown in Figure 8-5a. One way of esti-
mating target maneuvers assuming stationary measurement noise is to use a lvcll-
known third-order guidance filter described in Chapter 7.2.4 to process LOS data
for the terminal guidance configuration design. This scheme contains the optima]
Kalman structure of combined prediction and correction in - which
- the filter is r g -
resented by either Equation (7-42) or (7-43). The gains (K, K,, and XI) and ( K ' ,
-
K;, Xi) which are related to the spectral densities of the process and measurement
noises have been analytically derived in Chapter 7.2.4. An optimal guidance loop,
termed optimal guidance system (OGS), that combines the filter Equation (7-42) with
Equation (8-13) based on the separation principle is shown in Figurc 8-5b. This
OGS providcs an effective approach to coping with system noise and disturbancc.
The model in Figure 8-5 is for a single direction in an inertial reference frame. This
same model applies for the X, Y, and Z directions; therefore, a Kalman filter is
needed for each direction. Using the noisy positions and the pursuer acceleration,
three Kalman filters (one for each direction) provide estimates of relative position,
relative velocity, and targct acceleration in each direction. These estimates arc then
used by the optimal guidance law to obtain a commanded acceleration to be applied
t o the input ofthe autopilot. A block diagram of the sccker, estimation, and guidancc
process is shown in Figure 8-6 [Francis and Mitchell, 19831.
I t is possible and even practical to implenlcnt sophisticated estimation and
guidancc functions in digital guidance systems that take advantagc of the prcsencc
of onboard microprocessors. Improvement in the missile's homing performance is
obtaincd using a combined guidance and estimation scheme. An advanced optimal
guidancc law in conjunction with the filter based on the scparation principle is used.
Equation (7-47) shows that the scckcr measurement model is gcncrally a nonlinear
equation. Using thc dcscribcd intercept navigation and guidancc system estimators
in Chaptcr 7.2.5, thc optimal guidancc loop can be reprcscntcd as thc optimal guid-
ancc law (Equation 8-3) with thc EKF tcchniquc (Scction 7.3.5), and as thc optimal
guidancc law (Equation 8-3) with a statistical linearization tcchniquc (Scction 7.2.;).
Thc advantages of I'NG, such as cffccti\.cncss, robustness, and casc of im-
plementation, togcthcr with its history of succcss as rclatcs to thc dcploymc~~t of
missilc systcms employing I'NG, cornbinc to cause I'NG to rcmain attractive. In
the scnsc that it produccs zero miss distancc for lcast intcgral square control effort
with a zcro-lag guidancc systcrn whcn thcrc arc n o targct mancuvcrs, I'NG has bccll
shown in studies to bc an optimal solution of thc lincar guidancc problcm. This
scrvcd as thc inlpctus for attempting to dcrivc g u i d a ~ ~ claws
c based on n~odcrn
control thcory that would bc morc cffcctivc than YNG for nonzcro-lag systcnls ill
the prcscnce of targct mancuvcrs. As shown in Figurc 8-7, inasmuch as thcy cstilnate
 I I Guidance Filter 1 Guidancc Law I Guidance I Inertial
I I (Eq. 7-42) 1 (Eq. 8-13) I Commands I Accelemliow

I I "nh I I I
I I I
I Rangc Mcasurcmcnl Noisc "cX I I
I+ I
I lncriial I
ConvcrLs
Noisy Range "c
I
MY
to T+Airlram
FCS +"%
' LOS
4 )
Refcrcnu: I +"nY
Anglc lu &
I Frame I Pn,pulsion -&&,
Rclalivc - 7tansli)r-
Posici~,ns I - I mation -%'+
(Eq.7-51))
K;~lman $r 1 I
Filter ' a b Z I
Z 'r I
Anglc
I Measurement
I A,rzl I I
I Noise I ? I I I

Figure 8-6 Seeker and OGS Block Diagram (From [Francis and Mitchell, 19831,
0 1983 IEEE)
 Sec. 8.2 Complementaryll(a1man FIltered Proportional Naulgatlon 481

RMS miss
distance (11)

Missile acceleration limlt (fUsec2) Autopilot llme conslanl (sec) Radome error slope (r)

Figure 8-7 The Optimal Guidance System Improves Performance Except with Radome
Error Slopes (Courrrsy of K. Hiroshigr, 1984)

target accelerations and take into account lags in thc missile hardware, OGS for the
most part are usually better than PNG laws and hence improve terminal guidance.
OGS will always require less acceleration than PNG to intercept a maneuvering
target. In order to be fully exploited, however, the application of OGS requires the
concurrent optimal estimation of states, X, w,, and t,. This comes at the expense
of more precise tracking requirements together with more sophisticated onboard
sensors and instrumentation for the missile. The requirements on component tol-
erances such as radome error, band-limited glint, and other correlated unmodeled
errors become more stringent with the use of Kalman filtering than with conven-
tional PNG. Theoretically, the Kalman estimator results in optimal performance,
in terms of minimal variance for RMS miss distance, when these component tol-
erances can be satisfied. This, however, is not always the case inasmuch as com-
ponent tolerances or measurement errors are subject to a certain amount of deg-
radation. This can be especially true for radome refraction errors. In such cases,
missile performance degradation is likely to be brought on more quickly in an OGS
than would happen with a conventional PNG system [Yueh, 1983(a)].

8.2 COMPLEMENTARYIKALMAPI FILTERED PROPORTlONAL

NAYIaATION: BIASED PNG AND COMPLEMENTARY PNO
Peak operation occurs with PNG when the target does not undergo any maneuvers.
In the case of target maneuvering, it is advantageous to alter the algorithm that is
used to compute the required acceleration Equation (6-16). This section and the
sections to follow will investigate a complementary/Kalman filtered P N G configu-
ration for obtaining better performance by means of adding a simple combined
482 Advanced Guidance System Deslgn Chap. 8

estimator-controller algorithm based on the optimal guidance law derived in Section

8.1.2. Specifically, one exploits those signals already being used for flight control
of the pursuer, thereby providing the derived inputs to the guidance algorithm for
improving terminal guidance accuracy and reducing homing time and radome-cou-
pling problems to thgse~characteristicof systems employing externally provided
inputs. Figure 8-8 defines the complementary/Kalman filtered P N G configuration,
in which the measured LOS rate u and derived inputs are passed through a corn-
plementary/Kalman filter to produce a smoothed LOS rate estimate & for use in the
P N G law Equation (6-16) as follows:

where u, denotes the guidance command a t the y-axis computed using the PNG
technique, and where is used instead of 6 . The effective navigation ratio A is
computed using Equation (8-4). By contrast to most modern guidance algorithms,
this complementary/Kalman filtered PNG configuration, which requires n o radical
modification to the circuitry of a conventional P N G system, and in some cases,
almost no externally provided inputs (such as range), significantly increases the
probability of intercepting a maneuvering target or a target in a very noisy envi-
ronment. The advantage of requiring almost no externally provided inputs cannot
be overstressed when one considers that a pursuer will very likely face threats that
will attempt to prevent it from acquiring range and range rate information. If this
happens to a pursuer employing a modern guidance algorithm that relies on such
information, the modern guidance algorithm may perform more poorly than PNG.
Because the guidance filtering uses time-varying noise adaptive gains, which are
typically functions of !, to compute an anticipated LOS rate estimate, the pursuer
is constantly flying toward a predicted intercept position. This is a more effececient
means of effecting target intercept than just attempting to zero out the LOS rate at
all times. An optimal control law is applied to the design guidance law to enhance
miss-distance performance. The optimal control law represents PNG augmented
with a missile lateral acceleration term and/or a target lateral acceleration term. Also,
the navigation ratio depends on time to go and control penalty function, as well as
the pursuer FCS and its airframe dynamics, which take into consideration the first-
order time lag of the pursuer FCS and airframe.
In addition to acceptable miss distances that are not only nearly close to the
optimal guidance system (OGS) but are significantly improved over those of con-
ventional PNG, this configuration results in system sensitivity to unmodeled errors
such as radome aberration that is significantly lowcr than that of an OGS. That is,

Figure 8-8 Complementary/Kalman Filtered PNG

Sec. 8.2 Complementarylffilman Filtered Proportional Nauigatlon 483

this complenicntary/Kalman filtered I'NG system is more robust than the OGS.
Consequently, compared to the OGS, increased system coniporicnt tolerances are
not accompanied by decreased system pcrformance. The tremendous improvements
over conventional I'NG to be gained with this system can be obtained by performing
systenl modifications to conventional I'NG systems at minimal cost. This is ac-
companied by the fact that the number of computations required is less than the
number required using the OGS.

8.2.1 Combined Seeker-Guidance Filtering

in a Complementary Filter

Improved pcrformance of a seeker-guidance filter can be obtained by implementing

a tracking error guidance system seeker complemented by a guidance filter. Con-
siderable interest is found in the LOS rate guidance system in problems concerning
the determination of miss distances a t lower frequencies. The seeker transfer function
for this systcm which contains no guidance delay becomes uA/u = s.

Combined seeker-guidance filtering in a complementary LOS rate

estimator. Following the first-order complementary/Kalman filter presented in
Section 4.6.1, consider a first-ordcr gi~idanccfilter complemented by a tracking
error guidance system seeker, as shown in Figure 8-Va, the result of which is that
the LOS rate estimate produced is independent of the tracking-loop time constant.
In this case, the measured LOS rate u is very nearly equal to the geometric u,,,,,.
The transfer function for the LOS rate estimator of Figure 8-9a can be written as
bicr = Ksl(s + K) which is the same model as that found in Equation (2-16) except
the filter gain K n o w replaces rhe seeker bandwidth o,.Hence, the LOS rate esti-

a) Combined Seeker-Guidance Filtering

Seeker
I Guidance Filtering

'-@b
b) Equivalent Model I

Figure 8-9 Combined Seeker-Guidance Filtering in a Complementary LOS Rate

Estimator
484 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

mator with no seeker dynamic delay is easily implemented. For simplicity of dis-
cussion henceforth, Figure 8-9a is simplified to Figure 8-9b. Note that the former
should be used for actual implementation. In Figure 8-9a, u = u is the derived LOS
acceleration that needs to be reconstructed artificially and u b = A u is the LOS angle
measurement bias error. u and abin Figure 8-9a correspond to the derived inputs
in the left-hand side of Figure 8-8. The Kalman filter gain K is the cut-off frequency
of the filter and it is of the form

where T, is the complementary filter t i ~ n econstant, v is the measurement variance

of v ( t ) , and q is the process variance of w ( t ) . For practical implementation, Equations
(8-15) and (7-29) are used to obtain K as functions of tR.

Combined seeker-guidance filtering in a complementary LOS

angle and LOS rate estimator. Following the second-order complemen-
taryiKalman filtcr prcscnted in Chapter 4.6.2. the problem is formulated (see Figure
8-10a) as
x = dish angle z=ud=x+1,
= measured dish angle
rrl = KE
A

u = derived LOS anglc accclcration x2 = u = LOS angle rate cstimatc

2 = 6 = LOS angle cstimatc
(8- 16)
whcrc E is the measured angular tracking crror. The transfcr function from U, ad,
and u to 6 and b can bc obtaincd by applying Equation (4-41)
6 ( s ) = [u(s) + Kud(s) + KI]lD(s),
+ K)&(S)- K(s + Kl)ud(s) + [s(K + KI) + KKI]u(s))ID(s)
= {(I (8- 17)
-
&(I)

whcrc D(s) = s' + Ks + K,. Assuming u(s) u,,(s), then Equation (8-17) bccomcs
6 ( 5 ) ---- [ u ( z ) + (Ks + K,)u(s)J/D(s) = u(s),
(8- 18)
&(s) ( ( s + K)U(s) + rKp(s)]lD(s) = &(s)
Hcncc, thc transfcr functions arc indcpcndcnt ofthc scckcr dynamics and the transfer
functions from thc measurcnlcnt LOS anglc a to 6 and u arc
6(s)/a(s) = (Ks + K,)lD(.c), &(s)/a(s) = sK,lD(s) (8- 19)
Thus, thc filtcr in Figurc 8-10a can bc simplified by a sccond-order guidance filter
alone, as shown in Figurc 8-lob. For simplicity of discussion henceforth, Figllrc
Sec. 8.2 ComplementaryIKalman Flltered Proportional Naulgatlon 485

a) Combined Seeker-Guidance Filtering

Guidance Filtering

b) Equivalent Model

ii
c) Approximate Model

Figure 8-10 Combined Seeker-Guidance Filtering in a Complementary LOS

Angle and LOS Rate Estimator

8-10a is simplified to Figure 8-lob. Note that the former should be used for actual
implementation. Applying Equation (4-40),
d61dt = b+ K(u - b), dbldt = 6 + KI(u - 6) (8-20)
In general, the best estimator poles for the unbiased filter when the measurement
noise is white are the complex ones, as in the case of estimator poles sl and sz defined
by Equation (4-43) when 5 < 1. However, in the case of correlated target glint and
radome error, real estimator poles are most suitable, that is, 5 > 1 in Equation (4-
43). The transfer function from u to u, is u,/u = KIAV,slD(s). The Kalman filter
gains K and KI are functions of the signal-to-noise ratio (SIN). It is preferable to
choose the K and KI gains from the Kalman tracking filter which depends on the
signal and noise covariance calculations. For practical implementation, K and KI are
functions o f t , so that the guidance filter has noise-adaptive capability. The K and
KI gains are kept very small in the early stage of homing so that the heavy noise
does not penetrate the filter. As the pursuer approaches intercept and the signal-to-
noise ratio becomes larger, the filters are gradually opened up by increasing the
gains almost exponentially as functions oft,. However, the values of K and KI are
not permitted to go to infinity at intercept due to seeker-head nonlinearities, radome-
loop stability, and glint noise due to maneuvering target. A simplified method using
486 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

two first-order filters can be used to replace the second-order filter, as shown in
Figure 8-10c where

Comparing Equation (8-21) with Equation (8-19). simple first-cut gains are

Since the LOS angle B is not used in the guidance law, the two cascaded simplified
first-order filters presented in Figure 8-10c provide an alternative to estimating the
LOS rate. Equation (8-22) can be used as a first-cut gain computation. The first
filter of Figure 8-10c functions like the normal LOS rate estimator shown in Figure
8-9a, which is to generate a smooth LOS rate estimate b, while the second filter
further smooths the LOS rate estimate A.

Discussion. From previous discussions, the tracking crror guidance system

seeker model complemented with a guidance filter (see Figures 8-9 and 8-10) is
more interesting than the tracking error guidance system seckcr model alone (see
Figure 2-13b) and the LOS rate guidance system seeker model (see Figure 2-14b).
The seeker models shown respectively in Figures 2-13, 2-13, 2-15, 8-9, and 8-
10 are available to the designcr as a frequency-response tool for analyzing the stability
of the guidance loop. Using these models. trade-offs must be made as they relate
to relative stability in the design and evaluatiotl ofloop gains. Thc target acceleration
estimate is derived mainly from LOS angular data and, in some case, also from the
externally supplicd target maneuvering information supplicd by the launching plat-
form, launching ship, and ground-defense site.

Classifications of complementarylKalman filtered PNG. Bascd on

Figures 8-9, t\vo possiblc structures of the complcrncntary/Kalman filtered PNG
are as follows:

1. Biased PNG (Bl'NG) algorithm (presented in Scction 8 . 2 . 2 ) =

~ ~u not avail-
able, that is, 14 = 0.
2. Co~nplcmcntaryI'NG (CI'NG) algorithm (prcscntcd in Scction 8.2.3)-rr =
u is availablc, and u h = 0.

Conventional PNG algorithm. In the convcntio~~al I'NG algorithm, 13

= 01,= 0 in Figures 8-9 and 8-10 and thc I'NG algorithm is of thc form shown
in Figure 2-6.

8.2.2 Biased PNG (BPNG) Algorithm

Technically, it is not an easy mattcr to achic1.c a sufficicntly accuratc cstimation of

in Equation (8-14), as thc LOS ratc mcasurcmcnt u contains a bias crror uhbcsidcs
the mcasurcmcnt noisc 71 as follows:
Sec. 8.2 Complementarylffilman Filtered Projmrtfonal Naulgatfon 487

where u,,,,. is the true LOS rate, and u h represents cithcr a constant or time-dependent
bias which can be constructed from

u,, = initial LOS rate (see Figure 6-41)

where 01, nz, and n are bias parameters, Aur = AT"/( VL.tV) is the change o f LOS
rate due only to target accclcration, and Ah,,, = A,,,,l(Vc-t,,) is the change of LOS
rate due only to pursuer acceleration. Much of the difficulty lies in the fact that thc
pursuer must be provided with a n angle-sensing device with second-order astatism,
prompting an often repeated suggestion that a bias be added to the PNG. When
- -
this is done. the & algorithm is of the form shown in Figure 8-9b where the LOS
rate bias error u b has been removed by adding a crh correction after the integration,
as shown in Figure 8-lla. Also, a, is the integration of ubof Equation (8-23b).
The result of following Case 1 (position bias) in Chapter 4.6.1 is illustrated in Figure
8-llb. Basically, u and u h are operated by the equivalent filter depicted in Figure
8-11c to produce u. As can be seen in Figure 8-llc, the ubinput exactly cancels
the bias term in Equation (8-23a); hence, u is purely a low-pass filter output with
u,,,,. and measurement noise v as the inputs. This verifies that the formulation is
correct. Thus, the idea now is to reconstruct Equation (8-2313) for ubas accurately
as possible so as to achieve the relationship shown in Figure 8-llc.

Optimal BPNG algorithm. Substituting Equation (2-6) into Equation

(8-13) results in an alternative optimal guidance law.

Figure 8-11 Biased PNG (BPNG) Al-

u=% gorithm
488 Advanced Guidance Sustem Design Chap. fj

where '-' represents the unfiltered optimal guidance law, and the guidance gains g,
and g4 are given by Equation (8-13). Equation (8-24) is rewritten as

where u h must be constructed artificially. The performance of the optimal BPNG

algorithm is seen to be independent of the FCS bandwidth o.This is because the
second term at the right side of the second equation of Equations (8-25) attempts
to cancel out the FCS dynamics.

Augmented proportional navigation (APN). From Equation (8-24)

the unfiltered APN law is obtained as

Thus, the unfiltered APN law shown in Figure 8-12 defines one of the BPNG
methods, that is, PNG + an extra term to account for. the maneuvering target. The
bias u b = A T , . / ( ~ V , )is the additional lateral targct acceleration. Determining the
bias term u h in Equation (8-26) requires that the target maneuver acceleration
AT,, cithcr be known a priori and be constant or be a deterministic function of time,
obtainable from the pursuer's tracking systems.

Optimal BPNG algorithm implementation. Equation (8-25) repre-

sents an optimal BPNG algorithm (bias from the targct and the pursuer acceleration)
where the compensation for the pursuer guidance system bandwidth is prox~idedby
the timc-varying navigation gain and an acceleration fecdback path. A block diagram
of such a BPNG system loop is obtaincd by combining Equation (8-25) and Figure
8-lib, as illustrated in Figure 8-13 in which AT, is the target acceleration estimate
that needs to bc obtaincd from a targct rnancuvcr estimator. One way to achieve
the cstimation of AT,.is to apply the second-order complcrnentary/Kalman filter
prescnted in Chaptcr 4.6.2 as follows:

where b,, is gi\?cn by Equation (8-25) and thc targct maneuvcr model is as usual.
The targct accelcration is the component of gra\.ity normal to the LOS in the case
of an air-to-ground guidancc la\%,application, as shown in Cottrcll [1971].

Target
Maneuver
Iislirnalor

k y= uc
Figure 8-12 Utifiltercd AI'N Guidance Law
Sec. 8.2 ComplementarylKalman Flltered Proportional Navigation

FCS
Airframe 8: Propulsion

Figure 8-13 Optimal BPNG Guidance System Loop

Suboptimal BPNG algorithm with pursuer acceleration feedback.

The idea of the suboptimal BPNG is to eliminate the target maneuver A T , estimator.
Substituting Equation (2-9) into Equation (8-25) yields

A block diagram of such a BPNG system loop is obtained by combining Equations

(8-28) and Fig. 8-llb, as illustrated in Figure 8-14 where the biased term due to
u is removed by a LOS rate correction input after the integrator.

Suboptimal BPNG algorithm without pursuer acceleration feed-

back (referred to as suboptimal guidance (SOG)). Generally speaking,
practical realization of the optimal guidance law cannot take place without infor-
mation on t,,, R, V,, and pursuer acceleration. For radar-homing seekers, a Kalman
filter may be used to estimate these quantities. In the case of missiles equipped with
an IR seeker, however, range and rate are not accurately known, so that it becomes
difficult to accurately estimate the variables necessary to utilize the optimal guidance
law. It happens that a large number of short-range AAM make use of an IR-homing
seeker. Based on the suboptimal BPNG algorithm with pursuer acceleration feed-

FCS
1 --2g, Airframe & Propulsion
r
A

-
93 g4
+
-
Kg,R - -
Kg,R
AX
g3
AC
AVC A"c

t t
v'
Figure 8-14 Suboptimal BPNG System Loop with Pursuer Acceleration Feedback
490 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap.

back, a suboptimal BPNG algorithm without pursuer acceleration feedback is dr-

rived in this section following Baba et al. [1988]. From Equation (2-60) A,,,, can
be written as

Substituting Equation (8-29a) into Equation (8-28) and solving for u, leads to
uc = {(w, + s)(A - 2g3 + g3t3~)/[1- 83 - 8 4 ) f~ $1)
~ 6 (8-29b)
With the assumption that s3u = 0,Equation (8-29b) gives

+ g3f-g + wyg3t.q)s]/[(l - 83 - g4)wy + s])*

where g 3 = A{(Agt,q + 2)e-'~,!" + AytC - ?)/(A: t:). u, can be rewritten as

This is the resulting suboptimal BPNG algorithm without pursuer acceleration feed-
back, as shown in Figure 8-15 with the following gains:

As seen in Figurc 8-4, A can bc optimally approximatcd to 3. Figure 8-16a illustrates

valucs of A , , T, and a as functions of !,for typical values of w, and h,. I t can be
seen from the figure that these three quantities remain nearly constant in each case
for values oft., greater than about 2 seconds but quickly change as tx goes below 1
second in order to cause the final miss distance to approach zero. Antiaircraft mis-
siles, the majority of which cmploy proximity fuses; d o not strictly require a zero
miss. In such instances, A l , T, and a can bc approximatcd as constant paramctcrs,
thus circumvcnting the difficult task of measuring or estimating r,. The actual im-
plcnlcntation is thcreforc grcatly facilitated. Thc guidance law given by Equation
(8-30). with constant valucs of A1, T , and a , is onc of the suboptimal BPNG
algorithms without pursuer accclcration fccdback which can be thought of as 1'NG
with phase lcad compensation, and rcquircs only the LOS ratc 6 to be implement~d~

A1"e
Figure 8-15 Suboptimal BPNG A~RW
rirhnl without Pursuer Accclcration Feed-
back
Sec. 8.2 ComplementarylffilmanFiltered Proportional Naulgatlon

0 ~ ' "2 " " "4 ' 6 8 10

tgo(set)

+=20, % = 5

2 4 6 8 10
tgo(set)

Figure 8-16 Optimal Guidance Gain hi

and Parameters T , a as Functions of Time
2 4 6 8 lo to Go (A = 3) (Fror,~[Bahn et d l . , 19881,
tgo(set) o 1988 A I A A ~

Simplified suboptimal BPNG algorithm with pursuer acceleration

feedback. Substituting g3 = A12 into Equations (8-28) yields a suboptimal
BPNG using a simplified optimal guidance law:

- Avct,,. AB R
- B
u + - A,,2,,-
L(, = -a
2
+-2
A,,,,,U b =
2 v, 2 v,
U;

Analogous to Figure 8-14, a functional block diagram of a simplified suboptimal

BPNG algorithm is shown in Figure 8-17 in which the guidance law operates
according to the measured range. The KRl(2Vc)block in Figure 8-17 is the only
element which is a function of R. Substituting Equation (7-29) into KRl(2 V,) yields
0.5/C which is not explicitly a function of R . Due to the fact that the Doppler radar
can measure the LOS rate and range rate information, this guidance law can be easily
implemented.
 Advanced Guidance S ~ s t e mDesign Chap. 8

-
K FCS

- S Airframe & Propulsion

KRI(2Vc) = 0.51C = constant B: function of tg and o

Y
Figure 8-17 Simplified Suboptimal BPNG Guidance System with Pursuer Ac-
celeration Feedback

Simplified suboptimal BPN algorithm without pursuer accelera-

tion feedback. Substituting Equation (8-29a) into Equation (8-32) and solving
for u, leads to

With the assumption s% = 0 , Equation (8-33) gives 14, = asI?l(s + k). This is the
resulting simplificd suboptimal BPNG algorithm without the pursuer acceleration
feedback shown in Figure 8-18, where k = (1 - AB/2)w,, and a = hV,t,w,/2.

8.2.3 Complementary PNG (CPNG) Algorithm

Thc complen~cntaryI'NG (CI'NG) algorithm is one of the comp1c~nentar)-IKalman

filtcred P N G algorithnls shown in Figure . 8-9 when ii is available and u b = 0.
Assuming I?,, = 0, Equation (8-23a) becomes u = I?,,,, + u. T o achieve high
performance in the & filtering, u = 6 = derived LOS accclcration needs to be
constructcd artificially as shown in Figure 8-1Va where ii = 3 6 and & = ( 5 +
K6)l(s + K) = 6 . Thus, if thcrc is no mcasurcment noise (,I = 0), and if ii can be
constructcd accurately, thcn & = u compcnsatcs for thc crror in due to ii in classical
I'NG. This vcrifics that rhc formulation in Figure 8-1Va is correct. The operation
of the LOS ratc estimator to providc a proper unbiascd valuc o f L O S ratc estimate
I? with I?,, = 0 rcquircs information on the dcrivcd LOS accclcration u.~ r a r n a t i c
ilnprovemcnts in terminal homing guidancc pcrforn~anccarc rcalizcd whcn the filter
bias cffcct is clirninatcd by thc usc of thc dcrivcd LOS accclcration 6 . The improved

Figure 8-18 Simplified suboptimal

0 s+k BI'NC; Algorithm without Pursuer Ac-
crlcratiotl Feedback
 Figure 8-19 Cornplcrnentary P N G (CPNG) Algorithm

guidance performance, through removal of the LOS rate bias effect using the CPNG
law, is manifested in a number of ways, including reduced miss distance, reduced
tendency for the missile to oscillate about a null value of the LOS rate, reduced
missile response time, and reduced requirements for terminal homing. Figure 8-
1% can be modified with a neiv input u/K, as shown in Figure 8-19b, which is
equivalent to the BPNG algorithm in Equation (8-25.) with u = KUb.

Optimal CPNG algorithm with a complementary LOS rate esti-

mator. Applying the combined seeker-guidance filtering in a complementary
LOS rate estimator (see Figure 8-Yb) to the design of an optimal CPNG algorithm
results in an optimal CPNG algorithm with a LOS rate estimator, as s h o ~ v nin
Figure 8-20a. From Equation (2-8b), u can be constructed artificially as follows:
1
- [2V,U + AT." -
A

u = A,,,,,] (8-34)
R
where AT" is the target acceleration estimate that needs to be obtained from a target
maneuver estimator or uplinkrd from the launch apparatus.

Second-order optimal CPNG algorithm. One way to estimate ATyis

to apply the second-order complementaryIKalman filter presented in Chapter 4.6.2
as follows:
6 = ii + K(U - b), AT" = -hYATy+ Kl(U - A) (8-35)
where u is given by Equation (8-34) and the target maneuver model is as usual.
Figure 8-20b shows the resulting second-order optimal CPNG algorithm. Referring
to the feedback loop switch O in Figure 8-20b, the open switch enables the system
to operate as a conventional PNG system, without externally provided range in-
formation in the guidance filter and without a u input to facilitate homing.
 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. fj

1.
t
+ 1 %y 1 %.elEstimator
Maneuver] '
I
a) Optimal CPNG Algorithm with a Complementary LOS Rate Estimator

Oplimal Filters

A"?
b) Second-Order Optimal CPNG Algorithm

r-- - - 1
Guidance La\\
Eqs. (6-13)
FCS
Aimamc S: Propubion

c) Optimal CPNG Algorithm with a Complementary LOS Angle and LOS Rate Eslimalor

Figure 8-20 Optimal CPNG Algorithm

Sec. 8.2 ComplementarylKalman Flltered Proportional Naulgatlon 495

Optimal CPNG with a complementary LOS angle and LOS rate es-
timator. Another fornlulation occurs when the combined seeker-guidance fil-
tering in a complcmcntary LOS angle and LOS rate estimator (see Figure 8-lob)
is used, as shown in Figurc 8-20c.

Third-order optimal CPNG algorithm. Applying the third-order com-

plementarylKaln~anfi!ter presented in Chapter 4.6.3 yields

The third-order optimal CPNG, whose block diagram is the same as that of the
general optimal CPNG algorithm with LOS angle and angle rate estimator shown
in Figure 8-20c, is an advanced terminal guidance with a Kalman filter structure.
The four choices of the guidance law gains are given in Equation (8-13b). When
g3 = 112, the guidance law is referred to as the tlrird-order sitnplified optirt~nlCPSG
alyoritlrn~.When g, = g, = 0 are used, the configuration is reduced to a PNG with
advanced filtering. A choice must be made concerning operating the system as either
a second- or third-order scheme. Setting the gain KI to zero eliminates target ac-
celeration terms. Consequently, Equation (8-36c) would not apply, and Equation
(8-36b) would not have the term that is the change of LOS rate due only to target
acceleration term AuTdefined in Section 8.2.2. The second-order scheme is therefore
lacking as relates to prediction, since only the LOS angle u and the LOS rate u are
estimated, but suffers nothing as relates to correction. This means that, although
the second-order scheme does not take into account a maneuvering target, it is
nonetheless suitable at high altitudes, at which targets do little, if any, maneuvering.
Furthermore, when the switch O is open, the guidance computer can be reduced
to a second-order LOS angle and rate filter with complex pole as in Equation (8-
19). The gains K and KI can thus be practically chosen based on the classical second-
order filter. Finally, the third gain K1 is also chosen, empirically as a function of
I,, to be adaptive to the boresight error noise level. It varies inversely proportional
to T,. Following Yueh [1983(a)], the choice of varying filter gains K, K I , and KI
can be somewhat suboptimal in comparison with the choice of the Kalman gains
of the OGS shown in Section 8.1.2. The time-varying gains associated with Kalman
filters imply time-varying constants as well. Considering its time-varying gains,
one might also refer to the practical third-order system as a type of Kalman system.
One difference between the two systems, however, is that the Kalman system em-
ploys recursive calculations from onboard and uplinked data to vary its gains, and
hence imposes more stringent requirements on component tolerances. The practical
third-order system, on the other hand, bases its gains only on the value o f t , , and
hence the gains are more easily computed than the Kalman gains, and take advantage
of a noise-adaptation feature. Because the data input requirements to the guidance
496 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap.

computer are simplified for this latter guidance scheme, the gains demand less fine
tuning, and the requirements concerning component tolerances become less str,,,,
gent. Consequently, as intercept approaches the likelihood of degradation owing
unmodeled errors such as radome errors and glint noise is decreased, while the
terminal homing accuracy is nearly equal to that normally associated with truly
optimal Kalman systems. Thus, the third-order complementary system functions
within the limits of and is compatible with the well-understood, practical Second-
order system, and the gains are much sinlpler to compute than Kalman gains. Fur-
thermore, the trade-off between target acceleration and r a d o ~ n ecoupling can he
optimized by varying the gain parameters K, K I , and KI adaptively and pract~call~.
to the noise input.
The guidance filtering gains K, K J , and K1 in Equations (8-36) can also be
obtained from the well-known third-order guidance filter given by Equation (7-
43) which is used by the OGS in Section 8.1.2. Substituting Equations (2-5a) 2nd
(2-7) into Equation (7-43) yields

Comparing Equations (8-36) and (8-37), K , K J , and KI can be obtained from

- K'.
K;, and Xi as follows:

-- - -
where ( K , K,, and K1) and K ' , K ; , and K ;can bc obtained from Table 7-1. K and
KJ arc kcpt vcry small in the early stage of homing. As the missile approaches
intcrccpt, their valucs increasc and then remain constant as the value of !,becomes
less than double the homing-loop time constant. In Table 7-1, the estimator gains
for scmiactive homing guidance systems arc functions of h,ll,, which arc defined
in Equation (7-45), and which can be expanded as

where RO 2nd h . 4 arc constants. The cstilnator gains cat] be dctcrmined from LOS
rate. For the tracking error guidancc system scckcr model, thc LOS rate is pro-
portional to the borcsight anglc error and the cstitnator gains can therefore be d ~ -
terrnincd from thc borcsight crror.

Fourth-order optimal CPNG algorithm with decoupling feature*

performance
It has bccn show11 that the PNG algorithm suffcrs a dcgradation in
whcn dcaling with high-altitude, accclcratcd, and maneuverable targets in the pres-
Sec. 8.2 ComplementarylKaiman Filtered Proportional NauIgatlon 497

ence ofenvironmental effects. A three-state vector is generally involved in the third-

order optimal CPNG schen~efor an antiair interccptor/missile against highly ma-
neuverablc targets. Because of the simplicity of this scheme, it has been found
favorable in many applications. However, it only estimates the relative motion
between the target and the missile, and cannot provide the decoupling of the target
motion from the missile control in order to improve kill probability with preferred
flight path angle, performance against maneuvering and possibly jamming targets,
and handling of the blind mode in the endgame. A high-order scheme is proposed
here that estimates the missilc and target velocityi, and iT in addition to the LOS
rate 6 and the target acceleration AT,. In order to achieve decoupling of target and
pursuer position and rate component, the LOS rate b in the third-order filter Equa-
tion (8-36) needs to be further decoupled into the estimated missile LOS rate com-
ponent u, and the estimated target LOS rate component u T which are represented
by A " 1
U T = yr/R, u, = ;,/R (8-49)
The new fourth-order estimator will estimate 6, bT, b,, and A T y . The target ve-
locity estimate y T and pursuer velocity estimate !, are in turn computed from
Equation (8-40), while the LOS rate estimate must be computed from Equations
(3-6) to be compatible with thc ne\v guidance filtering loop mechanizations as fol-
lows:

5 = 5 , - u,,
v<6
+-R
Applying Equations (8-36a) and (8-41), the filter equation for the estimated LOS
angle takes the form:

The following can be obtained by differentiating Equation (8-40) and using Equation
(7-43):

Similarly, the missile component is expressed as

db,,, - -v<a,,, Am,
-
dt R
+ - + K<(U- 6)
R
where the missile accelerometer output is denoted by A,, and K, is theoretically set
to zero before decoupling of the target and missile information. For practical im-
plementation, Ki is much smaller than K,. The following is the band-limited target
acceleration model which is exactly the same as that given in Equation (8-36c):
498 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

Differentiating Equation (8-41) and using Equations (8-42b) and (8-42c) yields

If Ki = 0, then this equation is reduced to Equation (8-36b;) and hence verifies the
decoupling of the equation of into the equations of&^ and U,,. Thus, the estimated
iT
target lateral velocity and the target acceleration AT, can be decoupled from the
missile's components. This target prediction capability can be used for enhancing
terminal guidance especially for a blind-mode situation in the endgame. The target
flight path angle y~ and missile flight path angle y,,, can be derived from $,, and
i7. based on Equations (2-7), which, in turn, can be used in directional warhead
applications to improve fusing and detonation of an aimed warhead operation to
enable improvement in kill ratio. The fourth-order equations are provided by Equa-
tions (8-42) where K, K,, K,, and K, are the filter gains to be adaptive to the LOS
measurement noise. In blind-mode applications, these gains should be calculated
recursively as Kalman gains based on all the past accumulated LOS data that are
weighted properly through filter covariance probabilistic measures for the minimum
variance estimation [Yueh, 1983(a)]. In the particular case where the LOS angle u
measurement is not available, it can be constructed artificially from Equation (2-
+ +
14) as u = [ ( j T - )~,,,)lR](l I.) - 1.8 11 where the target position estimate can
be approximately given by the Euler formulation as jT = rt

Fourthsorder optimal CPNG algorithm with target acceleration

bias estimate. Applying the fourth-order equation in Equation (7-44) to Equa-
tions (8-36) results in the following fourth-order optimal C P N G algorithm with
targct accclcration bias estimate (jib):

Suboptimal CPNG algorithm. The idea of the suboptimal CPNG is to

eliminate the targct mancuvcr AT,. estimator. One way to achieve this is to utilize
the suboptimal BI'NG algorithm presented in Section 8.2.2 to derive u close to the
u kincrnatic equation [Equation (8-34)] so as to compensate for u h .Thus, the result
is close to the suboptimal UI'NG algorithm. Thc smoothed LOS rate estimate can
be obtaincd as follows by comparing Equation (8-25) with thc suboptimal BPNG
algorithm of Equations (8-28)
*
g=-
K
s+K
(U + Uh) = u + u* = h -.A 2x3 U + - gAV,'
.3 R
+
83
A v,
+ R4
A",,. (8-45)

hence

u = l-
[a^- v
R
V ~(( -
g3
( + -
^-2g3)~-1
83
) A,., ] (8-46)
This equation computes the derived LOS acceleration u input to Figure 8-19, based
on A, t,. R, V,, A,, and o,. Equation (8-14) expresses the suboptixnal C P N G al-
gorithm in which the optimal navigation law with conventional L'NG configuration
can be obtained if 11 = 6 is used in Figure 8-19 and optimal A is chosen as Equation
(8-4). The resulting guidance system is illustrated in Figure 8-21a in which the
guidance law operates according to the measured range. The LOS angle rate 6 input,

Arframe & Propulsion

1 + g4k3

Airframe & Propulsion

Switch @ Open: P N F with Optimal h

(B)

GI: Approsimarz Constant

G2: Function of Timc to Go
Decreasing FCS and FCS Ban&%idth
Bandwidth 01,
I
0 Time to Go tg

Figure 8-21 (a) Suboptimal CPNG Algorithm with Range Information (b) Sim-
plified Suboptimal CPNG Algorithm with Range Information (c) Guidance Gain
Variation for Suboptimal CPNG Guidance System without Range Information
500 Advanced Guidance Sgstem Design Chap.

which is a measurable quantity, is shown on the left side of the figure. Referring
to the feedback-loop switch O in Figure 8-21a, the open switch enables the system
to operate as a conventional PNG system without externally provided range in-
formation in the guidance- filter and without the u input to aid in homing. In the
case of the switch being closed, the LOS angle rate is modified by using the externally
provided range information. This represents a suboptimal CPNG algorithm stru,
ture.
Simplified suboptimal CPNG algorithm. Applying the simplified sub-
optimal BPNG algorithm Equations (8-33) instead of the suboptimal BPNG 21-
gorithm Equation (8-28), Equation (8-46) is simplified as follows.

Analogous to Figure 8-21a, a functional block diagram of a simplified suboptimal

CPNG algorithm is shown in Figure 8-21b. This figure can also be obtained bv
settingg3 = A12 in the suboptimal CPNG law shown in Figure 8-21a. From Equa-
tion (8-47),

The following is obtained by substituting Equation (7-29) into Equation (8-48):

where
Gz = CB and G I = 2C (8-50)
where range R is not explicitly contained in the gains GI and G,. A block diagram
of a suboptimal CPNG algorithm without range information is obtained by applying
Figure 8-10b with uiK from Equation (8-49). By using this double feedback-loop
system, GI and G2 can be selected in advance. Theoretically, GI is approximated
by a fixed-constant value depending on the characteristics of the guidance filter, and
G2 is a function of pursuer FCS bandwidth w,, and [,. As seen from Equatio~l(8-
50), as w, approaches m, G2 becomes
GiB - G I
- - -
lim
Wr - =. -
3 2
This equation analytically presents the maximun~gain for C2. Therefore, the value
o f G2 is selected so as not to be larger than GI/?. The largest possible valuc of Gz
chosen at the beginning of homing diminishes to zero at !, = 0. The variation of
the gain G2in Equation (8-50) versus t, is shown in Figure 8-21c. The value of
the G2 gain decrcascs slightly as thc altitude increascs since the FCS bandn'idtll
gcncrally decrcascs correspondingly. However, if the FCS bandwidth is designed
to bc constant throughout the flight, the valuc of G2 is a function oft,, only. For a
fixed C2, the cffcctive navigation ratio is proportional to G I .
Sec. 8.2 ComplementarylKalman filtered Proportional Naulgatlon 501

A conventional seeker model, as shown in Figure 2-13b is used instead of a

combined sceker-guidance fitting, as shown in Figure 8-9. With the perfect dy-
namics of both the gimbal and thc ratc gyro, a seeker model transfer function block
diagram with parasitic feedback paths from n~issile-bodyrate and body acceleration
can be derived. In the absence of radome slope effects, and for a large stabilization
loop gain K,, it can easily be shown that thc LOS rate estimatc and A,,,,(s)lu(s)are
dependent o f the tracking-loop tinlc constant. That is, the LOS ratc estimate has a
seckcr-dynamic delay. In addition, the LOS rate estimate is coupled from thc hcad
dynamics since parasitic feedback loops are also coupled from the hcad dynamics
evcn for a large stabilization loop gain. If the LOS ratc guidance system scckcr
modcl presented in Figure 2-l4b is uscd for guidancc, then the measured LOS rate
is still coupled to the tracking-loop time constant 7, and the seeker-head dynamics
enter into the guidance signal. Thus, when the first-order guidance filter comple-
mentcd by a tracking error guidance system, as shown in Figure 8-9, is used in the
simplified suboptimal C P N G , the results are much better than those of the preccding
two classical seeker implementations.

8.2.4 Terminal Guidance System Analysis

Augmented proportional navigation (APN). The relative trajectory

y, and the required missilc acceleration r r , duc to a maneuvering target can be obtained
in a similar way as in Equations (1) and (2) of Figure 6-41, as follows:

As seen in Equation (8-52a). decreasing A will decrease the relative trajectory. The
acceleration required by an APN law to intercept a step-maneuvering target is
seen in Equation (8-52b). As time increases, the missile acceleration required to
intercept a maneuvering target decreases. The maximum required acceleration using
APN from Equation (8-52b) at the initial time is expressed as (u,),,, = 0.5A AT,
which shows that only half as much acceleration is required by the missile with
APN than missiles employing a P N G law (see Chapter 6.5.2) with A = 3 . The target
acceleration is actually not known a priori. However, in the case of an A P N law it
must be estimated continuously during flight. Also required for implementation of
this guidance law is t,. The results of linear system analysis o f missile acceleration
required for threatltarget intercept without disturbance noise are presented in Table
8-2a. Following the development of current advanced fighters, future fighter per-
formance may be improved to achieve an evasive maneuver of approximately 7 to
502 Advanced Gutdance System Design C b .8

TABLE 8-2 (A) MISSILE ACCELEfthTION FOR TARGET lNTERCEPT WITHOUT

DISTURBANCE NOBE: LIPIEAR SYSTEM AP(ALYSIS (B\ MISSILE ACCELERATION
PREDICTION FOR FUTURE TnReAT: LINEAR SYSTEM APlALYSIS

a) Missile Acceleration for Target Intercept Without Disturbance Noise:

Linear System Analysis
-
tow Altitude:
Accel. (g) Required b l . 62)Required
with A = 3 with A = 4
Target Maneuver (g) PNG APN APN
7 23 10.5 14
7.5 22.5 11.3 15
High Altitude:
Accel. (g) Required Accel. (g) Required
with A = 3 with A = 4
Altitude(km) Target Maneuver (g) PNG APN APN
15 1.7 5.2 2.6 3.4
18 0.9 2.7 1.4 1.8
18 1.5 4.5 2.3 3 .O

b) Missile Acceleration Prediction for Future Threat:

Linear System Analysis
Accel. (sl
.",Rewired -1. IE') Renuired
with n = 3 w;% A ='4
Altitude Target Maneuver (g) PN G APN APN
JAW 7-9 21-27* 10.5-13.5* 14-18*
High 1.5-2.2 4.5-6.6* 2.3-3.3* 3-4.4*

A: Navigation Ratio
PNG: Proportional Navigation
APN: Augmented Proportional Navigation
*Other disturbances plus system dynamics wi\lrequirt even more acceleration capability of
the missile

9 g. Table 8-2b prcscnts missile linear system analysis requircmcnts for futurc target
intercept without disrurbancc i~oise.The preceding results show that the accclcration
requjrcmrnts of APN arc much lcss than that of I'NC.

Guidance law simulation

The miss-disrance (lateral position error) responses to
De~errriitiisticSi~t~rrlorian:
a stcp-target maneuvcr using PNG and APN arc sensitive to the FCS bandwidth.
As the FCS bandwidth decreases, the pcrformancc dcgradcs. Miss-distance respollscs
to a step-target rnaneuvcr using the third-order simplified optimal CPNG and third-
ordcr optimal CPNG arc jnscnsitive to the FCS bandwidth. This is because the
feedback loop of thc missile accclcrarion in the guidar-rcelaw is attempting to ca~lcel
out the FCS dynamics when thc rcal FCS bandwidrh is known.
Sec. 8.2 ComplementarylKalman Filtered Proportional Navigation 503

I Normal Value
1
0 I I I
0 0.1 1 .o 1.0
A,,: Target Acceleration Bandwidth (set-l)

Figure 8-22 Guidance Law Performance vs. Target Maneuver Bandwidth

Stoclrnstic Sirnulation: The total RMS miss distances from the noise and random
target maneuver are presented in Figures 8-22, 8-23, and 8-24. Four guidance laws
are compared in Figure 8-22 over a range of values for the target maneuver band-
width. The guidance filter gains are designed optimally to yield the lowest value
of RMS miss distance. The major improvement in miss distance over conventional
PNG is achieved through the use of the APN law which includes a target acceleration
term for target maneuvers. Further improvement due to the third-order simplified
optimal C P N G is achieved by accounting for missile FCS dynamics. Furthermore,
the third-order optimal CPNG law provides an even lower miss distance than that

Optimal CPNG

01 I 4
0 0.1 0.5 1 .o
r,: Autopilot Time Constant (Sec)

Figure 8-23 Guidance Law Performance vs. AIP Time Constant

 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

.-%
u
-.-8
Third-Order Simplified
\ PNG

Ti

5
z
Optimal CPNG

0. I I I I
0 1 3 3 4
Missile Maneuver Capability
Target Maneuver Level

Figure 8-24 Guidance Law Periormance vs. Missile Maneuver Capability

of the third-order simplified optimal CPNG at a high target acceleration bandwidth

because it considers the target bandwidth.
The sensitivity of the missile FCS time constant T, (inverse to the FCS band-
width o,)on miss distance for all guidance laws is drawn in Figure 8-23. Both the
third-order simplified optimal CPNG and third-order optimal C P N G law improve
the missile perfornlance due to 7, over the PNG and APN laws. CPNG guidance
laws are not only superior to PNG and APN in the case of large T,., but also less
sensitive to T~ variation. The miss distances for all algorithms decrease as 7,.decreases.
However, all of thcm become sensitive to tracking noises as T,,decreases. Thus, this
stochastic simulation shows similar results as those in the preceding deterministic
simulation of step-target maneuver. In the previous discussions, the designs of
C P N G guidance laws are matched to the true model representation of missile dy-
namics, except for the neglected nonlinearities in the model. A nonlinearity due to
missile acceleration limit is considered in Figure 8-24. This figure shows guidance
performance as a function of the ratio of missile maneuver capability to target ma-
neuver level. APN, third-order simplified optimal CI'NG, and third-ordcr optinla1
C P N G law offer significant inlprovemcnts over I'NG when thc ratio of the n~issilc
acccleration capability to t l ~ etarget acceleration level is low. That is, they can achic\.c
lower miss distances and rcquirc lower missile ma~lcuvcringcapability. The rcasoll
for the slight improvement in miss distance of the third-order simplified optimal
C P N G over that of the Al'N is due to the fact that the fornlcr includes the missile
FCS dynamics. The miss-distance impro\~cmentby thc third-order optimal CPNG
is slightly morc than that by thc third-order simplified optinla1 CI'NG in lower
ratios because target dynamics are included in the third-order optimal CPNG. It
can be shown that radonlc errors influcnce systcnl pcrfornlancc and thc OGS is
Sec. 8.2 ComplementarylKalman Flltered Proportional Naulgatlon 505

sensitive to the negative radomc slope. In this respect, the advanced guidance laws
presented in this section are superior to the OGS in cases of severe negative radomc
slope. The guidance computer of a conventional P N G systcm docs not contain
prediction terms, and so 1'NG is not very effective against maneuvering targcts.
The third-order optimal CPNG, conversely, provides improvcn~cntsin miss-dis-
tancc performance especially against maneuvering targets. Furthermore. it has al-
most all the advantages associated with convcntional I'NG with rcspcct to radome
errors. C o ~ n p a r c dwith OGS, it has better radomc error tolerance and represents a
trade-off in terms of ultimate miss-distance accuracy. That is, the requirctnent con-
cerning this q u ~ n t i t yis lower than that of OGS in order to arrive at a systcm that
is less sensitive to unmodcled crrors that can result in an unacceptable miss distance
at the closest point of approach.

Comparison of suboptimal guidance (SOG) and PNG. Following

Baba et al. (19881, simulation studies involving a linear homing system and a realistic
nonlinear homing system are employed to compare the performance of SOG (see
Section 8.2.2) against that of the PNG.

Performance comparison in linear homing systems. Using the lin-

earized homing system depicted in Figure 8-23, SOG and PNG are conlparcd for
performance as measured by the miss distances and the required missile lateral ac-
celerations. Corresponding to the case in which o,.= 20 and A,. = 3 in Figure 8-
16, the S O G parameters are given the following values: A, = 3, T = 0.26, and a
= 0.215. The autopilot parameters, the time constant of the seeker dynamics, and
the closing velocity are given as follows: a,, = 747336.7, a , = 62507.3, a , = 1443.72,
'73 = 58.9, bo = 746214.8, 6, = 143.73, br = 63.3, T H = 0.1, and I .; = 896 (mls).
In computing the rniss distnnce ( M D ) and the rnissile lnrrral ncceleratiot~d ~ r eto n launch
error, it is assumed that there is no target acceleration, no noise, and that G.V(s) =
1. The results, which have been normalized, are displayed in Figures 8-25b and 8-
23c. T h e first of these figures show that to achieve a negligible miss distance with
SOG, there must be at least a 1.2-sec intercept. PNG, on the other hand, requires
approximately 1.8 sec for A = 3 and 2 sec for 11 = 4. Looking at the maximum
accelerations in Figure 8-23c, it can be seen that this quantity is larger for S O G
than for P N G and that SOG possesses a faster response. By virtue of its smaller
intercept time and faster response, SOG in this case permits a closer attack. Under
the assumptions of no launch error, no noise, and C\-(s) = 1, the rniss distarlce and
the missile lateral acceleration dire to n step-target acceleration are computed. The results,
shown in Figures 8-25d and 8-25e, show that SOG results in negligible miss for
intercept times as low as nearly one ha16 those of PNG. Moreover, the maximum
miss produced with S O G is on the order of 40 percent of that with P N G of A =
4. Figure 8-25e, however, shows that the differences between the accelerations
produced by SOG and P N G are small. These results indicate that SOG is well suited
for use against targets with large transverse accelerations. T o compute miss distance
due to white noise, the Monte Carlo simulation technique is employed with 100
 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

OUIDAfKE LAW

AUTOPILOT

"1 4sz+b,s*b,
la,sJ+a,sz.a,s.+

-E

1 10 loo
fit (radlsec)
(C)

Figure 8-25 (a) Block Diagram for the Linear Homing System (b) Miss Due to
a Launch Error (c) Missile Acceleration Due to a Launch Error (d) Miss Due to a
Target Acceleration (e) Missile Acceleration Due to a Target Acceleration (0 Miss
Due to Noise (No Noise Filter) (g) Miss Due to Noise as a Function of the Cutoff
Frequency of the Noise Filter (h) Miss as a Function of Cutoff Frequency of the
Noise Filter (Suboptimal Guidance Law) (i) Miss as a Function of CutoffFrequency
ofthe Noise Filter (Proportional Navigation) (j) Miss Due to Target's 9-g Maneuver
and Noise as a Function of Spectral Density of Noise (From [Baba rr a l . , 19881, O
1988 A I A A )
Sec. 8.2 CompfemenkrylKalman Filtered Proportional Naufgatlon 507

MISS DUE TO

a
10 100
R c (radkec)

4, (rad2/rad/s)
U)
Figure 8-25 (continued)

runs and under the assumption of zero launch error and zero target lateral accel-
eration. Also, a noise filter is not considered. Finally, to compensate for dynamic
lags of both a seeker head and an autopilot, the P N G A was set to 4 rather than 3.
The results are plotted in Figure 8-25f as a function of spectral density. As a con-
sequence of using linear equations, the RMS miss distance is proportional to noise
amplitude and thus to @N raised to the one-half power. Figure 8-25f shows that
the RMS miss distance produced with SOG is about twice that with PNG. The
high-frequency gain of the SOG system becomes larger than that of the P N G system,
owing to the phase lead compensation represented in Equation (8-30). Conse-
quently, the SOG system uses a second-order Butterworth filter having a transfer
function presented in Figure 8-25a. Effects of the noise filter are investigated using
a value of RMS miss due to noise of (PN = lo-' rad21radlsec. Figure 8-25g shows
the results, which are plotted as a function of cutoff frequency a,. The RMS miss
508 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

due to either a target 9-g acceleration or a measurement noise is plotted in Figures

8-25h and 8-251 as a function of the cutoff frequency of the noise filter. Minimizing
the total miss distance (that is, miss due to noise plus miss due to target maneuver)
is the criterion for selecting the optimum cutoff frequency. Figure 8-25h shows that
the optimum cutoff frequency of SOG is on the order of 3 radlsec for tf = 4 set
and 35 radlsec for tf = 1.2 sec. Similarly. Figure 8-25i shows that the optimum
cutoff frequency of P N G is about 6 radlsec for tf = 4 sec and 40 radfsec for tf =
2 sec. From these results, a cutoff frequency of 35 radlsec is selected. Figure 8-2jj
shows the miss due to 9-g target lateral acceleration and angular noise of differing
spectral densities. For < rad2/rad/sec, SOG produces smaller miss than
PNG, the opposite being true for CJN > 2 x rad2/rad/sec.
Application to the infrared homing short-range AAM. Following
Baba et al. [1988], SOG and PNG are applied to the model of a fictitious IR homing
short-range AAM. Currently existing missiles such as the AIM-9 are used to estimate
aerodynamic coefficients and geometrical and inertial data, the former of which are
functions of the Mach number. The simulation consists of a mathematical model
to describe the equations of motion of a missilc, the aerodynamic coefficients, and
nonlinear mathematical models of major missile subsystems, including the seeker,
noise filter, autopilot, and propulsion systems. The overall system is the one shown
in Figure 8-25a with the same autopilot parameters as in the previous linear study.
Here, again, the altitude is 2,000 m , velocity is Mach 2, the time elapsed after launch
is 2.8 sec, and the angular velocity of the rolleron's rotor is 2,400 radisec. The cut-
off frequency is selected to be 33 radisec, and the target model is a point mass having
3 degrees of frcedom. The initial launch conditions consist of: (1) both missile and
target having vclocitics of .9 Mach; (2) both nlissilc and target at altitude 5.000 m;
and (3) an initial off-borcsight angle of 0 dcg. Thc simulation rcsults for the AAM
intercepting a targct which is turtling at 7 g in the horizontal plane are shown in
Figure 8-26a. The simulations, consisting of a Monte Carlo technique with 100
runs, result in the ~ 0 d : f o rthc case of no noise, achieving smaller misses than those
with PNG. If noisc is added, however, the broadside attack and tail-chase scenarios
have S O G producing largcr misses than PNG. 111thcse cases, noise contributes most
significantly to thc miss. I'NG produces a much largcr miss than SOG for the head-
on attack. Again, although SOG is shown by these rcsults to be more sensitive to
noisc than I'NG, it is also nlorc cffcctive against a highly mancuvcrable target. For
a fighter attempting to cvadc a missilc, one of thc most cffcctivc maneuvers it call
undergo is the high-g barrcl roll (HGB). For this rcason, simulations arc pcrformcd
for the AAM against a targct ycrforming a 7-g barrcl roll. The flight pattern of a
targct undergoing a HGB nlancuvcr is s h o ~ v nin Figure 8-2Ob, together with the
initial position of thc missilc.
Thc cngagcnlcnt gcotnetry is assumed to be hcad on. With an initial rclatiyc
range of 5,000 m , thc target flies straight until thc point at which it begins the HGU.
Miss rcsults vcrsus barrcl-roll rate arc sho\vn in Figure 8-26c for a targct that initintcs
thc HGB whcn it is at a distancc of 3,000 m from thc AAM. Assuming 3 nl to bc
Sec. 8.2 ComplementaryIKalman filtered Proportional Navlgatlon 509

180 (Head-on) loo0 0 . 13 0. 88 15. 18 3. LO 3 . 27 18. 19

MISSILE

TIME-TO-GO ( s e c )

-
- 5-
E
W
U
2

2
E
m

2 2-
s'-
6-

L-
3-
/ -
7
8
Q:

o
8
LO

?i 3 0 - -
2u

-'20-
u
SOG

Oo' 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
We (rad/sec) TIME-TO-GO (sec)
(C) (E)
Figure 8-26 (a) Miss and Acceleration of the Missile Intercepting a 7-g Constant-
Turn Target (b) HGB Flight Pattern and Nomenclature for Coordinate Axes (c)
Miss vs. Barrel-Roll Rate (d) Miss vs. Time to Go (COB = 3 radlsec) (e) Load Factor
vs. Time to Go (WB = 3 radlsec) (From [Baba et a l . , 19881, 0 1988 AIAA)
 510 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

the effective miss for target kill, then the PNG-guided missile fails to intercept the
target if the latter performs the HGB with a barrel-roll rate o f greater than 1.2 rad/
sec. ';The SOG-guided missile, on the other hand, intercepts the target for all barrel-
roll kates shown in the figure. Miss versus 1, when the target initiates a barrel roll
with a rate of 3 radlsec is illustrated in Figure 8-26d. Gravity acts to cause the miss
to change in a sinusoidal fashion. Modifying the autopilot to compensate for gravity
eliminates this sinusoidal variation in miss, producing instead the broken lines shown
in Figure 8-26d. In this case the miss does not depend on the maneuver initiation
time. In each case the maximum load factor is shown in Figure 8-26e. Here it can
be seen that the load factor of the SOG-guided missile is smaller than that of PNG.

8.3 OTHER TERMINAL GUIDANCE LAWS

Some of the guidance laws that have not been covered so far have their applications
in special areas such as optimization theory or, particularly, differential games for
nonlinear dynamic systems. Some involve very simple and straightfonvard imple-
mentations of ad hoc controllers. H o et al. [I9651 present one of the earlier papers
on the application of differential game theory to the short-range missile problem.
In this paper, variational techniques were used to solve pursuit-evasion problems
and an example was provided that proves that under certain conditions PNG was
optimal. Pfeiffer [I9671 constructed near-optin~umguidance laws using a method
of successive approximations similar to quasi-linearization. Fivc polynomial-type
approximations for nominal trajectory and sensitivity matrix cor~lputationswere
studied [Gemin, 19691, with particularly useful results for prcprogrammed pertur-
bation navigation schemes. An iterative technique for the near-optimum solution
of a nonlinear differential game is developed [Anderson, 19741 based on successivc
linearizations of a two-point boundary value problem. This scheme was later applied
[Poulter and Anderson, 19761 to an AAM guidance problern. Vastly improved S~IIIU-
lation results were obtained over those of a PNG law; however, these came at a
cost of increased computational expense. Still later, Anderson [I9811 compared dif-
ferential game and L Q optimal guidance laws. It was concluded that differential
game formulations are not as sensitive to errors in targct accclcration estimation as
optimal control algorithms. Most guidancc schemes making use of high-fidelity
models demand excessive computational effort, drawing the attention of many in-
vcstigators. In Liu and Han 119751 continued fractions wcrc proposcd to rcducc the
modcl of a high-order nonlinear rocket. In Sridhar and Gupta [I9791 singular per-
turbation methods wcrc applied to an AAM in a n attcmpt to rcducc the compu-
tational cffort required. Fast mode was assumcd for thc rotational dynamics of the
missile whilc slow rnodcs wcrc assumcd for the position and vclocity translation
equations. Simulation results showed improvcmcnt over PNG.
As pointcd out [Clouticr ct a]., 1988; Evcrs ct al., 19881, optimal guidancc of
pulse motor missilc is just one arca still in need of rescarch, having bccn addressed
recently by Chcng ct al. [I9871 and Katzir et al. [1988]. O n the other hand, the
Sec. 8.3 Other Terminal Guidance Laws 511

fundatnental theoretical problems associated with boost-sustain midcourse guidance

appear to have been solved. Other issucs that need to be addressed include algorithm
implementation and problenl formulationlsolution. Those issucs associated with
algorithm inlplcnlcntation include: software design methodology selection, high-
order language run-time characteristics, cross-compiler efficiencies, and hardware
throughput/memory limitations [Evers et al., 19881. T h e issue of problem for-
m~~lation/solution involves a choice between closed-form solution to an approximate
optim'll formulation (LQG, LQR) or an approximate solution to an exact nonlinear
optimal formulation, which entails a nonlinear two-point boundary value problem.
Moreover, a numerical solution of the exact nonlinear problem is impractical for
implementation reasons. With terminal and endgame guidance, there are usually
problems associated with degradation in seeker measurements, resulting in a lack
of target information and the need for a stochastic endgame approach. As previously
mentioned, homing guidance also reduces the information available from the mea-
surements, which suggests dual-control techniques. Additional work on guidance
lawlautopilot interactions, especially with respect to the acceleration limits of the
airframe and the autopilot's finite time response, should be pursued. Embedding
the autopilot models in the guidance algorithm derivation is another possibly re-
\varding approach. Several guidance algorithms have been developed which, in some
way, attempt to deal with autopilot/airframe performance constraints [Lin and
Yueh, 1984(a)-(c); Yueh and Lin, 1984, 1985(a)]. A modified PNG was derived
which adjusts the autopilot gains to minimize a penalty function on control effort
and time to go. Other works [Aggarwal and Moore, 1984; Caughlin and Bullock,
1984; Lin, 1983(a); Lin and Yueh, 1984(a); Stallard, 19831 derived guidance laws to
deal specifically with the problems of BTT control. In Caughlin and Bullock [I9881
a reachable set theory is applied to the design of guidance laws which deal explicitly
xvith hard limits on airframe achievable acceleration. The endgame part of the in-
tercept has received only limited attention in the guidance and control literature.
Dowdle et al. [1982], Dowdle et al. [1983], and Lin and Shafroth [1983(a)] gener-
alized the LQG regulator and, after appropriate model linearization via pseudo-
measurements, estimated the target state with a reinitializing Kalman filter. A gen-
eralized likelihood ratio approach was applied to the innovations process as a target
maneuver detector.
In a more fundamental look at the endgame, Looze et al. [I9871 used Cramer-
Rao lower-bound analysis to investigate the quality of target acceleration infor-
-
mation available from the seeker measurements. It was found that target acceleration
was accurately estimated for the maneuvers considered, but that such estimates were
poorly utilized by the modified PNG law. The guidance law was subsequently
altered with lead compensation of the roll command to yield improved miss-distance
performance. Finally, in a departure from these approaches, Forte and Shinar 119871
formulated a planar air-to-air intercept problem as a mixed-strategy, zero-sum,
stochastic differential game. The cost functional of the min-max problem was single-
shot-kill-probability. The optimal pursuer's strategy is in the form of a parametric
guidance lawlstate estimator which demonstrates increased single-shot-kill-proba-
512 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

bility against any frequency of target maneuvers when compared with any single
strategy guidance algorithm. This approach has recently been expanded to a 3-D
encounter [Forte and Shinar, 19881.

Example 8-3: Tenninal guidance law based on a perturbation

technique. Optimization problems have always been important in the NGC
field. For example, a complete trajectory can be optimized by using the calculus of
variations. However, this leads to a two-point boundary value problem requiring
iterative methods to arrive at the solution. Another problem in the NGC field is
the perturbation technique which has been used to derive control laws for several
aircraft and missile trajectory optimization problems. All the system dynamics can
be optimized by these techniques by separating the system dynamics into slow and
fast states. The solution obtained is then reduced in order, after which it is combined
systematically to achieve a near-optimal solution to the full-order problem. Per-
turbation techniques are used in this example based on Aggarwal and Moore [I9841
to obtain nonlinear feedback control solutions to the terminal guidance problem of
a skid-to-turn (STT) or a long-range ramjet-powered bank-to-turn (BTT) missile.
T o achieve slow and fast states separation, artificially small perturbed parameters
are generally contained in the system dynamics of these problems. In the pertur-
bation technique, Taylor's expansion is used to expand a nonlinear dynamic system
solution f(x, E) about the small perturbed parameters as follows:

f (x, E) = f (x, 0) + af
-
a
+
where the perturbed parameters are represented by E and the state variables by x.
O n the right-hand side of Equation (8-53). the first term is referred to as the zero-
order solution and the second term the first-order solution. The perturbation pro-
cedure is carried out in a stepwise manner as follows. The first step involves
arranging the dynamics according to slow and fast states. In the second step, the
zero-order solution in Equation (8-53) is obtained by setting the perturbed param-
eters t to zero in the state and then solving the rcduced-order problem. The initial
or terminal condition of states with E = O serves as the boundary conditions for
the zero-order solution in this step. The perturbed parameter is dominant in the
first-ordcr solution of Equation (8-53). With the boundary conditions derivcd in
the zero-order solution and the conditions that arc not satisfied in the zero-order
solution, the last step of the procedure is to obtain the first-order solution using
optimality conditions with fast states.

Problem formulation. The problenl formulation for the beginning of

terminal guidance is in a nonrotating coordinate frame aligned with the seeker frame
A simple planar representation of the intercept geometry of terminal guidance is
found in Figure 2-10 where x, is replaced by z, in this section, and the relative
Sec. 8.3 Other Termlnal Guldance Laws 513

motion has the following dynamic model:

d .
- yr = 1 4 ~ "- A,,,, = AT" - A,. cos
dl
+ (8-54)

d
- i , = AT, - A,,,: = A T , - A , s i n + (8-55)
dr

where the missile acceleration command in the missile and target plane is represented
+
by A,, is the bank angle, and the missile roll-rate command is denoted by $,.
Zero-lag acceleration and roll-rate autopilots are assumed for the missile. It is de-
sirable to find an optimal choice for the controls A, and 4, such that the following
performance index is minimized:

Optimal conditions. The Hamiltonian of Equation (8-39) with respect

to Equations (8-34) through (8-58) is as follows:
H = A,y,+ A;,(-A, cos $ + AT?) + A,4, + (8-60)
Xi,(-A, sin + + AT,) + A+$< + - (K,Az + K&:)
1
2
Due to the independence of the Hamiltonian from y, and z,,
A,= 0, A, = 0 (8-61)
The other three costate variables are as follows:
A.Y , = - A ,, A;,= -A Z 1 A+ = A, [A;, cos + - A;, sin $1 (8-62)
where the boundary conditions are
Mtf) = ~"(tf). A=(tf) = ~ ~ ( f f ) (8-63)
If d is assumed to be the terminal miss distance and 6is assumed to be the terminal
final bank angle, then
y,(tf) = d cos 5, z, ( t f ) = d sin 5, (8-64)
-
d = + zt(tf),
dy:(tf) + = tan-' ~"(tf)
-
rr(tf)
514 Advanced Guldance System Design Chap. 8

The following are obtained by substituting Equations (8-64) into Equations (8-61)
and (8-62):
X,(t) = d cos
-+ = constant, A,(t) = d sin = constant (8-65)

The optimal controller is expressed as

A;, cos + A;, sin + - K.A, = 0 (8-67)
and
= - AmlK*
Substituting Equations (8-66) into Equation (8-67), the optimal acceleration com-
mand is expressed as
d
A, = - cos (& - +)tn (8-69)
K,
Using Equations (8-62), (8-66), and (8-69), A+ is obtained as

where A*(ff) = 0.As discussed previously, the optimal problem including Equations
(8-54) through (8-59), (8-h4), (8-68), and (8-70), is now represented as a two-
point boundary value problem.

Optimal solution. This two-point boundary value problem can be solved

by many methods. A solution for Equations (8-68) and (8-69) must be found by
numerical methods because of the nonlinear dynamics. It is necessary to obtain
closed-form solutions for the control commands with respect to the current values
of the system states, so that practical implementation is possible.

Zero-Order Solution. Since the dynamic response of a missile to the roll-

rate command is much faster than that of the rcst of the system states, the following
assumption can be made:
$Jr = 0 for t > to (8-71)
This implies that the roll-rate command here impulses at to and will bring the rolling
angle $J to 6 for tirnc t > I,,. Hence Equations (8-57) and (8-70) become
A:(() = a, L$,(t) = o (8-72)
and Equation (8-69) bccomcs
A:' = dr,lK,
Sec. 8.3 Other Termfnaf Gufdance Laws 515

where the superscript o denotes the zero-order solution. The following is obtained
by substituting Equation (8-73) into Equation (8-54) at 4 = 6

Equation (8-74) is first integrated from t to twice and then compared to the
boundary condition in Equation (8-64) to obtain
d cos 6= [3Kd/(3K,+ (1) + y r ( t ) t, + A T , t,:/2] (8-75)
From Equations (8-54), (8-73), and (8-83), the acceleration command in the Y
direction is obtained as
A,, = A:'cos$ = (Alt,:)(y,+ y,tg + AT,t,:/2), A = 3t,i/(t: + 3K,) (8-76)
A similar expression can be obtained for the acceleration command in the z direction
by substituting Equations (8-73) and (8-75) into Equation (8-55) as follows:
A,, = A: sin 5 = (A/t,;)(z,+ 4,t,, + AT,t,;/2) (8-77)
-
From Equations (8-76) and (8-77), A!! = V A ?+~A?: and + = tan-' (A,,IA,,).
The preceding zero-order solution assumed stabilized roll. It is exactly the same as
the optimal solution applied using conventional linear theory to the STT missile
with zero lag FCS in Equation (8-5) with C = 1, R = K,, and A = 0.

First-Order Solution. The missile is assumed nonrolling at t > to in Equa-

tions (8-72). However, it is in reality rolled near the initial time to. The transfor-
mation T = ( I - to)/K&can be made for analyzing the dynamic behavior near to.
The results in the boundary layer equations can then be obtained for the missile
bank angle transition at the initiation of terminal guidance. The assumption of
+
Km + 0 leads to the roll angle being changed from = +(to) at T = 0 to $I = 6
at T = m, while maintaining the other states in this time range. Thus

The Hamiltonian is expressed as

H I = hby, + A L i , + At, ( - A ? cos 4 + AT^)
(8-79)

which remains constant for an autonomous system. Hence, H I (T) = H(t,) in Equa-
tion (8-60). The following is obtained by comparing Equations (8-60) and (8-79)
 Advanced Guidance Sustem Design Chap. 8

INITIAL CONDITIONS,
TERMINAL TlME 4,
tg

-
UPDATE INTERVAL
IFtf.to~tg

SET 1 = t, . t o
8
,
ZERO-ORDER OUTER SOLUTION

q = ~ e e s = ( ~ : ) ( y ~ + f ~ t Y ~$ 1+2%
)

3 3
A = 3 tg / (tg + 3 K,)
SYSTEM DYNAMICS
I
= tan" (\/A+)

I
ZERO-ORDER INNER SOLUTION
I
t INTEGRATE SYSTEM
DYNAMICS OVER TlME
INTERVAL tg

- I
FIRST-ORDER OUTER SOLUTION

Figure 8-27 Scqucncc of Perturbation Solution C o m p ~ ~ t a t i o tFor

~ s Siniulating
MTT Missilc Trajcctorics (Irro~n/A.@ar~~,alotld .\loort, 19841 ir~irkyri*rtr~isrio~r
,fiotn
AACC)
 Sec. 8.4 Radorne Error Calibration and Compensation

and using Equations (8-71), (8-72). and (8-78):

1
- A&& +;
- Km 6; = h;,(t,,)A!'(cos $ - cos 4) + h;,(tll)(sin $ - sin $)
Since K+ is very small, the second term in the left-hand side can bc neglected. The
following is obtained by substituting Equations (8-66) at t = t,, into Equation (8-
80):
- A = 4 - 1 - cos(6 - +)I (8-81)

Substituting Equations (8-68) and (8-73) into Equation (8-81) will yield the roll-
rate command &, equation as:
Km &f = 2 ~ 1 [I' -~ cos
~( - +)] or

In addition, from Equations (8-69) and (8-73), it is seen that

A, = At! cos(& - I$) (8-83)
The near-optimal guidance law for BTT missiles is due to the fact that the accel-
eration command A, in the target plane and the roll-rate command 4,are given by
Equations (8-83) and (8-82), respectively. Figure 8-27 shows the simulation flow
chart of this BTT optimal guidance law.

8.4 RADOME ERROR CALIBRATION AND COMPENSATION

Missile homing performance can be seriously degraded by boresight radome errors

whose slopes generally show large variations. Thus, to increase homing performance
and target intercept capability, in-flight radome error calibration and compensation
is essential to overcome the restrictions imposed by radome errors [Lin and Lee,
1983; Lin and Yueh, 1984(a),(b);Yueh and Lin, 1984, 1985(a), (b); Yost et al., 19801.

8.4.1 R a d o m e Error C o m p e n s a t i o n

This section first describes what has been done in the past to increase radome error
tolerance for guidance system and autopilot design, and the approach this section
proposes to use. T o improve STT and BTT system performance, it is essential to
increase the radome error tolerance. Considerable effort has been devoted to mod-
ifying guidance system and autopilot designs to achieve this goal. Chapter 2 discusses
radome error and its severity on guidance and control responsiveness of a homing
missile. As the speed and intercept altitude increase, the limitation imposed by the
518 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

radome error on guidance responsiveness also increases. This is also true for broad-
band homing systems. Large pitch and yalv motions occur at high altitudes causing
the direction of the radar waves to change through the radome. This change and
the refraction produce an apparent target motion. The effect o f a given radome slope
o n the miss distance is determined by the aerodynamic turning rate time T,, which
is small at lo\+,altitude and does not have much effect on the radome slope. However,
as T, increases with altitude, the per~nissibleradome slope range reduces which can
also lead to stability problems. This radorne error-induced stability problem can
cause more severe degradation for the modern guidance system than the PNG. The
randomly switched radome refraction slope cannot be easily modeled and the op-
timal guidance system (OGS) derived sut-fers more stringent component tolerances
against unmodeled errors. In fact, the allox+-ableradome slope range is one important
measure used in guidance system design to specify manufacturing tolerances on the
radome. When component tolerances are met, the O G S proves to be the optimal
design in terms of miss-distance performance index and acceleration command his-
tory. Thus, a design that overcomes the restrictions imposed by r a d o n ~ eerror is
necessary to allow increased homing missile perforn~anceand target intercept ca-
pability for a more robust guidance system optimization.
In the conventional approach, the most widcly irnplc~~lcnred tactical missile
systems are based on linear control theory where heavy guidance filtering is used
to increase body-motion coupling stability margins. The FCS bandwidth o has a
great effect on the system radome sensitivity. As o increases, system performance
becomcs more sensitive to radome slope error. This leads to stricter radomc spec-
ifications. One method of stabilizing the radome-coupling effects is to introduce a
lag-lead filtcr conipensation. The lag-lead filter provides the proper stability margins
at low frcqucncics without causing high-frequcncy effccts sincc radomc effects are
essentially a loxv-frequency problem. Some care, however, 171ustbe taken in selecting
the low-frequency corner since, at low frequcncics, a large changc in the timc con-
stant produces only a relatively small change in attenuation near the frequencies of
interest. For the parasitic loop of 0, the amount of lag-lead filtering required will
depend on the flight conditions. The fact that the n~issilclag-lead nctwork must be
varied with flight conditions represents one disadvantage, whilc another onc is that
thc timc lag induced in thc missile guidancc loop duc to thc filtering network is
also critical. T o alleviate the severe radome stability problcni for a high-altitude
engagement scenario, one of thc commonly uscd engineering "fixcs" is to introduce
pitch-rate compensation K, with gain K, fed back to cithcr bcforc or after the guid-
ance filtering nctwork. I t can somcwhat syni~nctrizcthe positive and ncgativc slope
stability region at the cost of slowing dolvn the autopilot rcsponsc. Hence, an a]-
ternative nlethod of radome compcnsation is accomplished by adding a 0 feedback
loop with conipensator gain K, to the guidancc coniputcr as shown in Figure 8-
21c. This attenuates the effects of radomc slopc so that the required stability margins
arc obtained for both plus and minus radorne errors. The inain disadvantagc of this
compcnsation is that thc rnissilc systcm time constant is dclibcratcly rcduccd. This
can be seen from tlic previous discussion involving Equation (8-41). T h e conipcll-
 Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Calibration and Compensation 510

sator gain K, from Figurc 8-21c with largc stability gain can be approximated by
K, = r. Since the rndome slope error is assumed validly to be constant over small
regions of the look angle, thc radome compcnstor gain K, is approxi~natelyconstant.
A guidancc loop that combined seeker-guidance filtering in a complementary LOS
ratc cstinlator shown in Figure 8-21c is more interesting. The radomc compensation
gain that is used in this guidancc loop is independent of the seeker tracking time
constant. If a conventional seeker, as shown in Fig. 2-13b, is used in Fig. 8-21c
instead of a combined seeker-guidance filter, thc compensator gain K, with small
tracking-loop time constant and largc stability gain can be approximated by K, =
r/(1 - r).
Pitch-rate compensation, which biases the radomc crror toward the positive
slope region, can somewhat symmetrize the positive and negative slope stability
region at the cost of slowing down the autopilot response. For the hypersonic in-
terceptor with speed beyond Mach 6, the required guidance system time constant
\vill bc larger than 4 sec, which is too sluggish for a classical homing missile. Thus
the simple, conventional "fix" cannot be extended to the next generation, hypersonic
interceptor. Another proposed approach (although never implemented in the past)
has been to estimate the radome error slope by requiring a missile body oscillation
in order to correlate the LOS ratc measurement with the known dither "test" signal.
The approach taken in this study is similar to the error identification concept but
removes the need for dithering. Rather, the proposed optimal guidance and control
technique relies on missile pitch angular velocity due to guidance commands and
explicitly accounts for the actual LOS rate contained in the radome corrupted bore-
sight data. Figure 8-28 shows an integrated NGC system with radome error com-
pensation.

Targets
f
Kinematics
-
Adaptivc Radome Intcgratcd
Error Eslimalor Control System
8.4.2)
(SC. (Chaps. 4, 6-81 ~ ) k ~-+ Airframe & Propulsion
( ~ ~ )3-51
4 4L 4
Gain
Adjustment
- .f
Onboard Airframe FCS
Navigation System Filter Sensors
(Chap. 5)

Figure 8-28 Integrated NGC System with Radome Error Compensation

 520 Advanced Guidance Sustem Design Chap. 8

Integrated modified PNG and optimal controller with radome

compensation
Modified PNG with Radome Comnpensation. The radome compensation
technique applied in Section 8.2.3 requires estimation of the radome slope error to
correct the LOS rate measurement through missile body rate. A radolne slope error
estimate has been incorporated in a modified PNG to generate a guidance Command.
The guidance acceleration command becomes

where & and 0 are smoothed values of 6 and 8, respectively. A detailed derivation
of Equation (8-84) is presented in Book 3 of the series. Adding radome compensator
with gain K, to the guidance formulation in Equation (8-84) yields

Besides the small-trim aerodynamic correction term that is proportional to Z,/,\I,

(< 0.01), there is also the pitch-rate compcnsation term to account for rhe radome
error. K, is introduced in the pitch acceleration command by n~ultiplyingthe pitch
rate by P - , the probability of radome error in the negative region, to be defined
later. The use of P- to scale the pitch-rate compensation for enlarging the radome
stability region has also dcmonstratcd reduced cxcitation in acceleration commands.
Integrated Modified PNG and Optimal Controller. The opti~nalcontroller
derived in Book 3 of the scrics is related to a modified I'NG system \vith navigation
ratio .A. According to the author's kno\vledgc, Equation (8-85) offers the first ana-
lytical expression for a rheorctical basis to introducc pitch-ratc compensation ac-
cording to thc optimal control law provided that thc radonle error slope can be
estimatcd.

8.4.2 Guidance Performance Analysis with In-Flight

Radome Error Calibration

Adaptive radome estimation design. An adaptive Kalma1-i filtering

bank in the s\vitching environment is used to realizc the changing processes in a
radome slopc. The rate of s\vitching is assumed to be cotlsiderably slo\vcr than that
of thc boresight crror (observation) sampling rate. That is, by assuming the rate of
positive-negative radomc slope switching to be snlallcr than thc data sampling rate,
the esti~nationschcnie can be rcduccd to the design of a bank of Kalman filters, each
matched to a ccrtain radomc slope configuration. Actually, follo\virlg thc adaptive
filtcr formulation [Chang and Athans, 1978; Moose, 1975; Moose and Wang. 19731,
thc random switching of thc unreliable plant (thc rado~ncslope) is modeled by a
semi-Markov process. A scmi-Markov process is a probabilistic system that makes
its state transitions according to thc transition probability matrix of a conventional
Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Callbration and Compensation

Filter Weights
Estimated LOS A Posteriori Hypothesis
Probabilities Calculated
Look Angles

Figure 8-29 Adaptive Radome Error Slope Estimator (One-State, Three-Bank

Kalman Filter)

Markov process. However, the amount of time spent in each state before the next
transition to a different state is a random variable. It is this property of a random
switching time that distinguishes the more general semi-Markov process from a
Markov process. The multiple states mentioned earlier are actually chosen to typify
the radome slope in the positive, zero, or negative slope regions. Thus, by proper
choice of the state and modeling of the transition processes, it is desired to realize
the variations of the radome slope as a randomly switching, semi-Markov process.
A general adaptive filter, as shown in Figure 8-29, essentially consists of a
bank of three Kalman filters, each matched to a possible plant configuration U, ( i
= 1 , 2, 3). The filter outputs are weighted by a time-varying a posteriori probability
to obtain the radome error slope estimate. The bank of three Kalman filters has the
deterministic inputs U1 = U + = 0.02 degldeg, U2 = U" = 0.0 degldeg, and U3
= U - = -0.02 degldeg to characterize the three plant configurations in the pos-
itive, zero, and negative slope regions, respectively. That is, the filter estimates from
each filter in the bank are further weighted by calculating the a posteriori hypothesis
probabilities. It is the probability of a given hypothesis that the radome slope is
around a certain U ,value, being true conditioned upon the past measurements. Since
during actual flight the unknown plant configuration (due to polarization effect)
might randomly switch at random times, the random switching of the radome slope
parameters must be mddeled as a semi-Markov process. The a posteriori hypothesis
testing involves the three conditional probabilities
522 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

where Zk+ denotes the collective events of all the past measurement history up to
time t k + 1, that is,

Equation (8-86) actually states that for a new boresight datum z k + I that just comes
in, a global hypothesis needs to be tested to see whether the datum indicates that
the plant configuration, or the radome slope, is near the positive, zero, or negative
slope region. It is a global instead of local hypothesis because it depends on the time
history of the data, as shown in Equation (8-87). Thus, the a posteriori conditional
probabilities should be calculated recursively to reflect all the past data dependence.
Detailed formulations are given [Moose, 1975; Moose and Wang, 19731 and are
shown below for i = 1, 2, 3, as

X normalizing factor x 2 [_Pi,&x Xii ( t h + ~- rk)]

j=l

in terms of the rccursive time index k. The normalizing factor is the inverse of the
sum of the three a posteriori conditional probabilities. T h e transition matrix Xv
from state Ui to Ui is symmetric and is based on the semi-Markov statistics. This
renders a very simple form for in-flight, real-time computation and eliminates the
computer storage problem that grows with increasing time in the conventional
Markov process approach. The first term on the right-hand side o f Equation (8-
88) furnishcs the adaptive learning feature of the system. It actually tests the new
borcsight data r k + l to check the probability of being within each plant condition,
that is, whcther it corresponds more to the positive slope or negative slope region.
This conditional probability can be approximated by a Gaussian density for those
cases in which thc probability of a transition occurring between any two adjacent
sampling timcs is very small. As pointed out [Moose and Wang, 19731, the actual
density is not Gaussian, but is in fact a weighted sum ofGaussian densities. However,
it was determined expcrimcntally from computer simulation that even when the
plant randomly switched as often as the duration of several systcm response ~ ~ I I I C S ,
the Gaussian approxinlation was quite good. The mean and variancc of the Gaussian
dcnsity arc rccursivcly dctcrn~incdby the bank of Kalman filtcr estimates and the
associated filtcr covariancc.
The following discusscs the linear state dynamic equation in Kalman filter
modeling bascd on the seeker boresight data mcasurcmcnt. Assume that or is the
radome abcrration crror with explicit look-angle dcpendence. Thus, the time de-
rivative of the mcasured LOS [see Equation (2-10)] to the first-order linearization
approximation can be obtaincd as shown in Equation (2-15b). Assuming type I
radio-frequency tracker, i + w,c = 6 . The measurement equation can be formalized
through thc LOS ratc measurement modcl [scc Equation (2-15b)l as
Sec. 8.4 Radorne Error Calbratlon and Compensatlon 523

whcrc 2 is thc smoothcd LOS rate from thc guidance filtering (of a t least sccond
t . nlcasuremcnt partial H is defincd as
ordcr) o ~ ~ t p uThe
H = - 0 (8-90)
whcrc 6 is the s~noothcdvalue of 0 passing through the same guidance filtcr. In
Equation (8-89) the mcasuremcnt noisc il is thc zero-mcan whitc-noise Gaussian
process with the spectral density equal to the LOS measurement noisc spectral den-
sity N,that is, the boresight angular data noisc sigma value. For small look angles
whcrc 1 ~ r . <
l 10, the sequential correlations of the radomc error slope can bc mod-
elcd simply as a random walk process (the correlations arc not consistent enough
to bc modeled),

where T = t k + l - tk and w is a Gaussian white-noise process with plant noise

.
variance defined as E[w(t) . w(T)] = Q(I) S(r - T), whcrc Q(t) is given by the
associated standard deviation from table look-up, if available, and may be time
varying. In Equation (8-91), drldt = d(da,/au,)ldt is of higher-order dependence
on 0 but is neglected in the linear filter approach. The first-order pitch rate dependent
term is already included in Equation (2-13b). For actual flight the auto correlation
function for the radome error slope tcnds to stay constant, rather than exponentially
correlated such as that modeled by the Markov process. This is because the typical
radomc error dependence on look angle is sinusoidal. Thus, the radome error slope
can best be modeled as a random walk sk- I = xk + tub. The weighted plant input

actually represents a very smoothed version of the radome slope estimate and is
used in a feedback version [that is, 5 in Equation (8-92) is used in Equation (8-
93)] to generate a "prediction term" so that Equation (8-91) is modified to become

The prediction term accompanied by the system noise variance is derived based on
UL = u - 0 at zero LOS, and hence drldt = measurement rcsidual/uL, where the
measurement residual is equal to z - z. H. This additional term has demonstrated
improvements in the estimation procedure. The plant noise variance Q is generally
determined on line with radome mapping table look-up. However, for simplicity
it is assumed that Q is identical for the three-plant configurations and can be cal-
culated in the first cut as the table look-up value with respect to the zero-mean
radome slope. Thus, with the same boresight measurenlent noise variance R for the
three filters, it can easily be shown that the three Kalman gains are identical if one
starts with the same initial filter variances. Using the a posteriori probability as the
weighting function to weight the estimator outputs, and assuming that the weighting
524 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

coefficients change very little from sample to sample, that is, P,, h i - I * P,,L
(this
assumption is not well justified if the slope is rapidly changing from sample to
sample), the following can be obtained [Moose, 19751:
.. -
ikil = @ ' ?k + ??b + Kb+l ' [&&+I f 0 '@ ' vk + 0 ' ub]
(8-94)
where indicates the operation of radome mapping process and becomes unity in
case of n o available satisfactory mapping data, that is, without the prediction term
introduced in Equation (8-93). N o w , the bank o f three filters is essentially reduced
to a single filter with weighted plant input 5 given by Equation (8-92).

Closed-loopanalysis for adaptive radome estimator. The adaptive

estimator results for terminal flight based on an open-loop guidance simulation are
plotted in Figures 8-30a through 8-30c for a sawtooth radome error slope model.
The sawtooth radome error slope model corresponds to the radome error model as
a triangular wave function of uL,P that is, the radome error varies with the LOS. In
Figure 8-30a, the broken curve 8/10 represents the sinusoidal body pitch-rate de-
pendence introduced in the simulation. The dotted curve i . H is the reconstructed
radome error and follows very closely the boresight error (actual data) z shown bv
the solid curve, despite the large noise level chosen (at 0.5"isec 1 u level). I t has the
tendency of cutting the corncrs when z goes through sharp spiking behavior. Figure
8-30b compares the actual r a d o ~ n eslope in the solid curve v with the estimated
radonle slope in the broken curve i. A response lag of approximately 1 sec can be
identified. The cstimatcd slopc also tends to overshoot when the actual slope changes
sign abruptly. The rcason that the estimates degrade near 3 and 8 sec is a nulling
of the missile body pitch ratc, which characterizes the radonlc crror s l o ~ sensitivity
c
and provides cscitation for thc estimator. The wcighted plant input C, as shown
by the dots, follows thc general trend of the slope estimate and can be denoted as
a further smoothed-out rcrsion of the estimatcd slopc. The a postcriori probabilities
for each plant are shown in Figure 8-30c. In Equation (8-90), P+ + Po + P- = 1 .
In actual flight only thc negative and positive slopes need calibration, and hcncc in
actual implcmcntation of thc in-plane radome crror calibration scheme only the
positivc slope probability P , and the negativc slopc probability P - arc used. There-
fore, the rcsults herc arc normalized so that P- + P- = I . Thc zcro slope probability
Po is still shown hcrc to indicatc the trend. Ucsidcs the 1-scc rcsponsc lag. the
probabilitics yicld strong indications of thc polarity of the slope. For instancc, P-
reaches 98 perccnt a t about 1.2 scc after the slopc switchcs at 0.8 scc. It starts to
dcgradc bccausc thc scnsitivity paramctcr 0 is gctting smaller and thus reduces the
variance or confidcncc lcvcl (which is related to the a postcriori probability) in the
changing cnvironmcnt.
TO check thc adaptivc filter perfor~nanceagainst rcalistic data, hybrid simu-
lation runs wcrc pcrformcd with all thc rcicvant angular information for the specific
pla~lcrccordcd. A hllOF sin~ulationwas cmploycd with thc hcad-on cngagemcnts
choscn a t 1-dcg heading error. Thcrc is a 0.5 dcglscc 1 u noise lcvcl on the LOS
ratc. Thc ratc gyro bias of 0.05 dcg/scc appcarcd on the LOS ratc as ~ b , ~ The , .
Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Callbratlon and Compensation 525

radomc crror slopc was a fast-changing process with the signals switching several
times. The bpdy pitch rate manifests more flailing behavior as can bc seen from thc
broken line 6/10 in Figure 8-31. The reconstructed radonic crror curve i . H, as
shown by the dots, still follows vcry closely the boresight crror (the solid curve
Z ) . The comparison of the estimated slopc and the actual one was vcry difficult
due to the anibiguity in the average and local slopc calculations during the hybrid
run. Not estimating the cross-plane slopc simultancously makes the missile roll
attitude contribution inseparable. After imbedding this adaptive estimator into a
terminal guici'~nccforward siniulation program to perform the closed-loop analysis,
encouraging results have been obtnincd. llcpcnding on the actual radon& crror and
the approaching trajectory, the improvement in the miss-distance performance index
ranges from 70 percent to 50 perccnt. In Yuch and Lin [1984) the estimated radome
error slopc is used in guidance and autopilot commands to provide an optinial pitch
rate compensation scheme for a modified proportional navigation system and an
optimal controller [Yuch and Lin, 198j(a)l. Using P+ and P - , the probabilities of
radome crror being in the positive and negative regions, respectively, to scale the

Figure 8-30 (a) Comparison fo Estimated and Actual Radome Errors after
Matched Guidance Filtering for Sawtooth Model (b) Estimated and Weightrd Ra-
dome Error Slopes (c) A Posteriori Probability for Adaptive Radome Error Esti-
mation
 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

(C)
Figure 6-30 (Continued)
Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Calibration and Compensation 527

pitch-rate con~pensationfor enlarging the radomc stability region, has also dem-
onstrated rcduccd cxcitation in acceleration comn~ands.

Discussion. A Kalman filter bank is dcsigned to enhance the dynamic

response timc for the radomc error slope estimate with compensation for the seeker
dynamic lag. In calculating the critical weighting coefficients (a posteriori proba-
bilities), a measure-predict-measure techniqi~eis used when the semi-Markov sta-
tistics of a random starting proccss are used to make the intermediate predictive
step. That is, the resulting estimated radomc slope paramctcr is the statistical average
weighted by time-varying, a posteriori hypothesis probability, which is calculated
concurrently with the recursive filter scheme by using Bayesian rule. T o reduce the
computational burden, the Kalman filter bank is digitally simulated and dcsigned
by tuning the noise processes, including the measurement and plant noise, to allow
a one-time calculation of the Kalman filter gain. The simple one-state filter described
previously can be modified to include a correlation parameter for studying the cross-
plane errors. The bank of Kalman filters can be increased to 3 to enlarge the dynamic
range while reducing the system response time simultaneously, and to estimate the
cross-plane radome error slope simultaneously for three-dimensional engagement.
The adaptive radome estimator design is intended to be an add-on compensation

Figure 8-31 Comparison of Estimated and Actual Radome Errors for Realistic
Data
528 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

network that is independent of guidance computer and autopilot design. The ob-
jective is to permit relaxation of missile bandwidth requirements by reducing error
due to radome at the guidance computer output, thus enhancing missile perfor-
mance.

8.4.3 Design Equations for PNG with Parasitic

Feedback

Following the excellent paper by Travers [1986], this section presents the design
equations for PNG with parasitic feedback. In general, a good portion of guidance
and control system design is taken up with iterative analysis surrounding a series
o f dynamic models o f increasing complexity. T o initialize this process for PNG
with parasitic feedback, algebraic equations have been developed that incorporate
certain elements o f synthesis and analytic design [Newton et al., 19573. The canonic
model is a seventh-order system that includes radome aberration and imperfect
seeker body motion isolation. The model, the miss budget as a function of radome
aberration, and the stochastic commanded acceleration and control surface rate due
to range independent noise (RIN) are described by the 15 parameters that result
from the design equations. Additional indicators provided to guide the design in-
clude the rate-loop gain and the lo\\.-frequency phase margin of the autopilot. Pre-
liminary design should be very conservative fro171a stability margin standpoint, and
system performance levels should be conservatively established to accommodate
attrition during the design period oxving to increases in the ordcr of the dynamics.

Problem definition. Figure 8-32a. u~hichis rcdra~l-nfro171 Figure

>' ., 2-ljb,
is a block diagram of the homing process. The details of the homing controller of
Figure 8-32a arc displayed in Figure 8-32b. The seeker with its target tracking and
body-motion isolation subsystcn~s,as shown in Figurc 7-13b, is reprcscntcd by the
multiloop section o f Figure 8-32b. Those autopilot signals of particular relevance
arc 6, a,and 0 . T w o additional signals that provide a measure of the cffccts of noise
on control activity arc the RMS values of u, and 8 due to RIN. The problem consists
of defining all the parameters of Figurc 8-32b so that the result of a simulation will
mirror thc miss distancc predicted by the stochastic inputs and the guidancc systell1
dynamics. A secondary aspect of the problem concerns computing some relevant
indicators of system pcrformancc. T o this end, consider the sin~plcrdiagram of
Figure 8 - 3 3 . The forward path is a fifth-ordcr system \vith the high-frcquc~lcy
poles and zcros of the antenna gyro loop ncglcctcd o\\ving to the fact that they arc
usually found \vcll outside thc guidance band\j,idth. The polcs of the antenna gyro-
loop transfer function arc likeivisc ncglcctcd in the feedback path, but the zeros
(Tzs)' arc not sincc these providc thc representation of body-motion leakage. Nc-
glccting thc high-frequency polcs of the antcnna gyro loop thercforc allows the
ordcr of thc systcm to be reduced from scvcnth to fifth. The parasitic elements in
Figurc 8 - 3 2 arc a sum of the following thrcc elements: thc radolnc slope bias ( 1 . 1 ~ ) -
the radornc slope (r), and the leakage in the seeker body-motion isolation loop ( ' 1 . 2 ) .
530 Advanced Guidance S p t e m Design Chap. 8

These elelnents are in cascade with the aerodynamic transfer function from achieved
acceleration to pitch rate 0. The manner in which the parasitic elements are studied
separately is as follows. First, it is assumed that v b , the value of which is not known
at this point, does exist in the parasitic feedback path. For that system the effects
of v 7 are investigated, following which the appropriate value of vt, is established to
ensure that the best system performance is obtained when the actual radome slope
is zero. Finally, one treats the effect of ( T ~ in
S )the ~ presence of rr, where the signs
of these coniponents are permitted to vary independently. Generally, the sign of
(T>s)* in Figure 8-32c is positive. However, in the case of utilizing sight line re-
construction INesline and Zarchan, 19851 to extend the virtual bandwidth of the
seeker gyro loop, the system becomes dependent on the scale factor errors of the
seeker and the rate gyro. It can then happen that the sign of the parasitic feedback
loop becomes negative. The zeros of the tail-controlied airframe shown in Figure
8-33c in the forward path are cancelled by the corresponding poles in the feedback
path, so that they are nonexistent to the extent that feedback is concerned. However,
these zeros still exist in the closed-loop response, but are neglected for the sake of
simplicity in the analysis presented here.

Design equations. In this section, the subscript 0 denotes the forward

path in the absence ofany parasitic feedback, while the subscript b denotes the closed-
loop respo~isein the presence of r.1,. The subscript + is used for the closed-loop
response in the presence of eithcr rT/2 or - I . = / - . 7
O r d e r Reduction by Truncation. In Figure 8%32c, thc homing controller has
the following transfer functiot~:
-
A,,, K ( 1 + 4 + 1)
G.~(s)= -) =
11, T ~ , , . c+. ~a,.,T:,,c2 + P.4 T.4,,s+ 1
7,. = effective autopilot time constant -- P.4T.4,, (8-95a)
where the polcs of the autopilot transfer function arc shown norlnalized with a
charactcristic tinlc constant ( T . , , ) the
, cube root of the s3 tcrrn, and two-dimen-
sionless coefficients (a, and P . 4 ) . Similar to Equation (2-42a), studies of autopilots
had used this for111of the cubic because of the plot of Siljac [lY(,Y], which showed
the loci of the ratio of the frequencies of the poles and the damping ratio of the
quadratic in thc a, f3 planc. The guidance transfcr function \vithout parasitic effects
is givcn by
A ,,, A C', s C ,4 (s)
(3) =
u (1 + ?.~)(1 + 7,,.c)

It was thought that the order of this transfcr function could be reduced from five
to three to limit further the number of variables it1 characterizing the guidance
dynamics, atid that the cffccrs of parasitic coupling might be plotted in the a, P
plane. It happens, llowevcr, that the cubic, although sufficient for thc effects of Ya
Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Calfbration and Compensation 531

7'-LE 8-3 TRUNCATION ERRORS, 5 -+ 3

= percent error due to truncation :\ = 3.6

From [Travcrs, 19861 with permission from AACC

and r ~ is, too low an ordcr for consideration of T2. Truncating Equation (8-9510)
results in

'guidance time constant = PIjTlj=

T~ T, + T, + T~ (8-95c)
~vherethe normalized u coefficient Po is given by

In an effort to analyze the errors arising from truncation, a comparison was per-
formed of normalized stochastic miss adjoints prior and subsequent to truncation.
Inasmuch as these adjoints are normalized to the s coefficient, which is not altered
by truncation, a comparison of adjoints is equivalent to a comparison of miss dis-
tances. Some of the results ofthis study are listed in Table 8-3. The errors in two
stochastic adjoints are shown for combinations of cubic coefficients and values of
the ratio ( T ~+ T , ) / T ~ , which is denoted by R. The RIN miss is consistently more
sensitive to truncation than the target maneuver miss. The most severe truncation
errors occur for a combination of low autopilot damping ratios and low P.4 when
the quadratic is the dominant term in the cubic. It was concluded that truncation
errors do not generally exceed 10 percent when the damping ratio of the autopilot
 Inouts Outouts Eauations

Analysis: Pb fit
Rs B-
Kb K+
A K.
Synthesis: B+ pb

P- R,
K+ Kb
K. A

Note that the symbol + used in Fisure A and in subsequent expressions means that all
operations may conditionally be e~ther+ or -. The closed-loop response for the
configuraration in Fisurure A is given by
Kbvc s l [lt(Vc,.li,)K,(ry'-))]
-
4,
- -
[:'~tab:)~+[~b*(~C~m)~b(~T,~)(~,~b)~b]~~t(~c~m)Kb 1 (1)
..
For notational ease, the follo\ving paramelers are defined:
"c
R q = R , K h D ; A-T,,'T,
(2)
This allotvs Equation (1) to be more compactly expressed as
A"
5
= [V,K,s]
- i - t CI= 7 ;
7
+ p, 7, + 11
(3)
where
'= - T+s ; K r = K ~ ( I + , ~ );- 'T+ = T h ( l = q )
-1 3 , .I 3
B,
-1 3

=
'I q!h (ltll) , (
-mt h( I ) : r (ill, t I ~ A(l+tl)"
) (4)
The ratio of K to fl as a function of y, and 11 can be obtained from Equation (4).
IK*/P*l, 1 ;11, (1-1,'V) 13
(-5)
Here, 111 is defined as the value associated tvith yl and unity.
Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Calibration and Compensation 533

is above 0.5. It is pointed out that the airframe zeros are neglected in this study.
The truncation errors are recognized as being a component of the miss scale factor,
S,,, which serve to bring closer together the predicted miss distance of the equations
and that resulting from numerical integration.

Guidance Loop Transfer Function with Radome Slope Bias Effect and With-
out Radome Slope Effect. The closed-loop guidance transfer function that results
from the existence of rl, in the feedback path is obtained from Equation (8-95c) as
follows:

Al/; s
A,,,
Y (3)
-- I + rhA V,/ V,,,
u Y? + allY? + [Po + rhA(V,l V,,,)(T,I T,,)]Y,, +

1 + rhA V,l V,,, (8-96a)

T$ effective guidance r y [l + YIJ\(V,IV,/,,,)(T,IT~)]

PbTh = (8-96b)
time constant 1 + ri,A V, I VpfZ

\vhcre 7,; has the same formula as that in Equation (3-28). The relationship between
the quantities subscripted with 0 and those with b is

Attitude-Loop Parameters ( A L P ) . The study of the attitude loop begins

with Equation (8-96). Having represented that configuration in the forward path
by the subscript b, consideration is now given to the effect of +rT12 in the feedback
path. This attitude loop is shown in Figure 8-33a. The closed-loop response for
this configuration is given by Equation (1) of Figure 8-33. Equation (4) of Figure
8-33 can be considered as the basic analytical equation of ALP. From the specified
parameters of the open loop, K b ,A, R,, and P b , the closed-loop parameters can
be derived. These are K , and P , . Those parameters that have as a subscript b can
be regarded as defining the center of the parasitic zone, while those parameters that
have as a subscript f can be regarded as defining the extent of the zone. From a
practical standpoint, Equation (4) of Figure 8-33 becomes more useful when in-
verted, as shown in Figure 8-33b. Then the center of the zone can be derived from
the specified limits to the extent of the zone. It should be noted that the center of
the zone is not merely the mean of the zone extremes. Disregarding 2 as a variable
in ALP is a consequence of the following factors. First, the normalized adjoints
discussed in the next section appear to vary only slightly with a.Second, as a result

Figure 8-33 (a) Cubic Attitude Loop with Radome Effects (b) Attitude Loop
Parameters (Frorn [Traverr, 19861 with p e n n i r s i o t ~ j o mAACC)
534 Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Calibration and ~ ~ t n p e n s a t i o ~

of the truncation to the cubic, there was a tendency for a3 to be very close to 2 for
many practical applications. Specific values for R, and A arise from the use of the
synthesis form for ALP. However, it may be advantageous to depart from using
these values as a matter of practical utility in design. A well-known rule of thumb
is that, when the product of R, and A remains constant, their effect can be considered
as remaining invariant. Letting $, which is greater than unity, be a multiplier on
A and a divisor on R,, there is then a means of identifying the condition of constant
product. The ratio of K to P is an indication of the incremental variability of the
normalized miss adjoints. With the introduction of $, the new value for K - is
smaller, as is the ncn7 value of p- . In the next section, it will be seen that the
normalized adjoints vary in a counterbalancing fashion when the introduction of $
(greater than unity) results in new values for K, and p,.

Cubic Miss Adjoints (CUBAN). The cubic miss adjoints are summarized
in Table 8-4. For any set of ALP, a corresponding set of normalized adjoints can
be obtained from Tablc 8-4a and the renormalizations of Equation (4) of Table 8-
4 are defined in Equation (5) of the same table.

Cubic Synthesis (CUSYN). Glint is eliniinatcd from consideration for syn-

thesis, owing to a number of reasons. First, the approximation of glint by white
additive noise is one for which the miss distance nlay not cvcn be proportional to
7 [Garnell, 19801. Inasmuch as it tends to be in the direction of target length,
glint miss may not have the samc impact on lethality as the othcr con~ponents.On
the other hand, one presupposes that the level of glint gets vcry small as rhc target
becomes very small. If glint is rctaincd in the synthcsis problcm. it \rill alxvays be
a factor in determining thc optimum bandwidth of the systcm because it is thc only
disturbance for which thc miss dccrcases as thc systcm becomes slo~ver.Finally,
glint is removed from the synthcsis problem in order to bring to the forefront clearly
the critical issues of trading the speed of responsc (improving accuracy, except per-
haps for glint) with control activity and parasitic rcquirenlcnts. Retaining the glint
adjoints is done so that glint as an input option can be treated in thc miss budgets
after performing synthcsis. For synthesis it is required for simplicity that any dcsigll
bascd on parasitic fccdback should be characterized by symmetrical pcrforrnancc at
the cxtrcmcs of thc zonc. This is a consequcncc of thc fact that thc radomc slopes
in practice arc gcncrally disposcd in symrnctrical fashion about zcro, so simplc cf-
ficicncy would rcquirc that the pcrformance zonc bc sy~nn~ctrical. In this way, the
cffectivc guidance timc constant that rcalizcs this symmctry can bc detcrmincd from
a specification of the stochastic inputs to thc problcnl, targct n~ancuvcr,and R1N.
T h c t w o componcnts of miss distance arc cquatcd as i i l , , ~ - = MGj- ~,+;./'7,:~"' =
nr~,+ = Ad&+ 4 . ~ ' 2 7 ~ " 'to yield thc timc c o n s t a ~ ~
that
t cffccts this equality

I/' ,;/2 '

This cquation is suhscqucntly substitutcd into u,,,,. = I(hlTJI,b,7 x . ) +
Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Callbratlon and Compensation 535

TABLE 8--4 a) Normalized Cubic Aaolnts

a = ?
K = 3 K = 3.5 K = 4.0 K = 4.5

p Myg M MTJ Myg M,r MTJ Myg M,,i MTJ Myg Mtri MTJ

b) Adjoints and ALP Conditions

For the general cubic controller, the normalized miss adjoints are a function of three variables: K , a,and
p identified in the transfer function for the controller,
A,
- s]/[y3+
- = [KV, ay' + Py + 11; y = Ts; PT = T,I (1)
u

These adjoints are defined for the inputs of glint, constant angle noise, and stochastic target maneuver,

which have the same formulae as in Figure 6-42. The z adjoints must be renormalized to the center of
the performance zone; that is to 7;. This renormalization takes into account the ratios of P, and T f as
given in the parameter q:

The renormalized adjoints, designated by a superscript asterisk, are defined as

By making iterative comparisons between ALP and typical system performance as obtained by the use
of Eq. (4) in Eq. (2), it will be possible to converge on a fixed set of values in Eq. (4) for use in miss
budgets. It is possible to convert the ALP zone to a performance zone using the renormalized adjoints,

and such a vrocedure lends itself to analvsis

From [Travers. 19861 with permission from AACC

536 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap.

( M ~ ~ ~ v , + ) which
~ ~ Tgives
~ ~the~ miss
~ ) with
~ ] zero
~ ~ actual
~ radome, and the result
is

which gives the R M S miss in the center of the zone. Equations (8-97) determine
7; and u,,, from the inputs v&f.I2and +:I2. This gives a total of four parameters,
from which any two may serve as the input parameters for synthesis. Also, from
Equations (8-97) the other five equations can all be determined. The six equations
involving two stochastic inputs and the RMS miss distance and 7; all constitute the
synthesis equations knon-n as CUSYN that are used to initiate the design sequence.
The equation for the ratio of the miss at the zone extreme to that at the center is

The importance of this ratio lies in its role in selecting the appropriate ALP, and
iteration must be employed if the value resulting from the application of Equation
(8-98) is not deemed satisfactory. The limited degrees of freedom associated with
this simple synthesis technique may produce unexpected consequences. Experience
in using this procedure has demonstrated that iteration in the C U S Y N technique
may be employed to obtain reasonable values of the four parameters. A worst-case
scenario, however, is one in which the synthesis procedure is so restrictive that
dummy values for the stochastic inputs may have to be carried along, inserting
corrections after the final step, the assembly of the miss budget. In this case the
level of control activity \vould also require modification, but any modification is a
simple scaling operation.
Missile Siring. One of the results of C U S Y N is the identification of the
stochastic target maneuver and 7;. It is required that the guidance system operate
linearly. As a means of satisfying this requirement, the first step consists of
identifying the step of target maneuver which is uniformly distributed over the last
7; of the intercept. Such a definition for the targct maneuver yields AT =
1 2 ( 1 ~117-/32.2(measured
t
) in g). For linear opcration, the maximum acceleration
of the interceptor must be greater than that of the targct by a factor S , specified by
the dcsigncr. This factor, termed the rnarleuvcr sfale-fanor, is gcnerally between 3.6
and 6.0, and its use defines the maximum required missile acceleration. At this point,
the maximun~design angle of attack, which is a function of the missile outboard
profile, must be specified by the designer. The ~nininlunlvalue of Ai, = VmZa -
that satisfies the requirclncnt of linear operation is given by the ratio of maximum
acceleration to maximum angle of attack. From the aerodynamic definition of T=
(see Table 2-2) together with an approximation, its corresponding maximum value
can also be determined as T, = - 1.05/Z, and
(T,),,, 5 1.05 V,,,a,, /[I845 S,q+.!'2(10 7,)t 1121 (8-99)
Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Calibration and Compensation 537

The ALP together with the result of Equation (8-0')) provide thc equation that
describes

Since RIN is also specified from CUSYN, in addition to closing velocity, it is

possible to cstimate u,,,based on cstin~atesof T, and T., as fractions of 7,:that results
from C U S Y N . An early cstimate of a,,,is obtained by arbitrarily setting AIKA at
4 and T, = T,, = ~,;/8.Part of the explanation for assigning these values to T; and
T, is that the effect o f r ~ is
, assumed to account for 318 of T,;, while the remainder is
equivalent to five equal time constants. O f these, three are in the autopilot, leaving
218 to bc divided between T , and T.,. An exact expression is given for a,,,, which
will be utilized a t a point further on in the design procedure, and an approximation
which is used at this point in the procedure.
v ~ + ~ K,+
~ A / z= 1.405 V,+)/"
(est) a,,.=
+ T , ) ] " ~- 7i3I2 where AIKA = 4
32.2 [~T,T,,(T,
(8-101)

Following C U S Y N , the missile-sizing equations can be employed by the designer

to judge the reasonableness of the requirements on the airframe and the radome as
well as the impact of RIN on the RMS level of commanded acceleration. Some
options which could be exercised a t this point include iteration through CUSYN
or the consideration of pseudo-values for the stochastic inputs.

Homing Controller Expansion ( H C E ) . Before expanding to the fifth order,

the necessary steps must be taken to go from the center of the parasitic zone to the
truncated forward path. In order to do this, however, A and r h must be determined
Equation (8-96c) is substituted into (8-96b) to get

In this equation, the solution for AlKb does not depend on 7,;. Next, one approx-
imates the cube root of A/Kb by the cube root of 1 + E, where E is much less than
unity. The solution for A is then given by

Given that K b and PJ, were determined from ALP, and that 7,; is known from
C U S Y N and T, from missile sizing, A is determined here from Po defined in
Equation (8-95d). Also, Equation (8-96c) can then be used to determine rb

The additional lag in the expression for 7,: is a consequence of the combination of
rb and T,. The required value for T , is obtained from Equations (8-96b) and (8-
104).
(required) T, = ~ i [ ( A l K ~ ) -
( l T,/T':) + (T,/T~)] (8-105)
538 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

However, the assumed dynamics to get result in an actual 7, that may not equal
the required value for T, in Equation (8-105). In this event, it is a matter of scaling
the values for T,, T,, and T,, and iterating the process of determining A, r b , and the
required T, until the value of 7, that is obtained is that required in Equation (8-
105). This process may be done manually or in an automated fashion. The rule for
assigning values to the time constants in the forward path may conveniently be
taken as the one given under missile sizing for the estimation of u,,, although it
may have to be altered if u,, is too large. Moreover, local requirements of seeker
tracking may dominate in setting 7,.Since u,, is dependent on T ~where / ~ T =7
- T,, T should be made larger if possible. This completes the expansion of the
order of the controller in the forward path, and determines the closed-loop response
of the autopilot and T,, T,, and A. Also determined in the feedback path are r ~ T,. ,
and r b
Seeker Gyro-Loop Bandwidth. Because the effect of TZis greatest on the
s3 coefficient of the closed-loop response, the order of the forward path should not
be less than 4 so that its effects on the dynamics and hence system performance are
adequately represented. In fact, a value of T2 was derived by the use of a third-
order system for the instance in which the sign of TZ feedback was always positive.
After completing the fourth-order analysis, it was discovered that the derived
expression for TZcompared favorably with that derived from the third-order case.
The fourth-order analysis necessitated further simplifications to avoid increases in
complexity. First, only a single set of nominal normalized coefficients for the quad-
ratic polynomial was used. Also, the case of large $ was postulated, giving large
values of T,and small values of r . ~ It. is possible in this case to neglect the variation
with 1.7of A and the normalizing of To. It \\.as also determined that the effect of
TZon the .r2 term was sufficiently small as to bc reasonably ncglected. Then Tr
influenced the 3' term and r r , the s term of the closed-loop character~sticpolynomial.
It became possible to plot these adjoints in the plane of the third- and first-order
coefficicnts. Additionally, these adjoints were normalized to T4 as opposed to the
sum of the time constants. o r the s coefficient. As a result, the miss distances were
made directly proportional to the values of the adjoints in the coefficient plane. One
axis in the plane of the adjoints represented the cffcct of r T and the other, the effect
of T2.It then became an easy tnattcr to examine effects of independent variation of
the txvo parameters. Assuming forward path A,,,/E = YKs/[+% a443+ ~ 4 4 '
+ y 4 b + I ] with 6 E 1 ; 5 , and the feedback path H,,,/,4,,, = [ t r + (&r)'](l +
T,s)/( l,',,,~),thcn thc closed-loop response is

Having simplified the problc~nin thc manncr spccificd, the adjoints in the plane of
the a and 6 coefficicnts wcrc normalized again rclativc to thc values at the point 0f
Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Callbratlon and Compensatfon 539

zero parasitics. Then the pernlissible excursions of Aa and A y were established

empirically by analyzing a number of practical cases. Using Equation (8-106), Aa
?= ( I.:/V,,,)KT,T i / T i , then substituting T bfor T4yields

It was found that the empirically determined value of ha of 0.4 increased the miss
distance on the order of 10 percent to 15 percent.
Autopilot and Airframe. The calculation of u s requires the airframe gains,
and even if thcse are known a prior^, a number of restrictive aspects of the autopilot
design must be given consideration. Included among those to be examined arc the
rate damping loop gain and the low-frequency gain margin (LFGM) of the loop
transmission. There are many instances in which the aerodynamic gains are not
available a t this juncture in the problem. However, a means of deriving the gains
is provided for these cases, which is based on the fact that certain factors involved
in determining the airframe parameters are more easily estimated owing to the fact
that they are dimensionless ratios. The ratio of Z 8 and Z , can be either remembered
from experience or estimated. This is also true for the ratio of the maximum values
of 6 to ct a t trim. Finally, the ratio of .21s to - V,Zs can be approximated from the
length of the missile. Length e is the single physical factor involved in the ratio of
mass to pitch moment of inertia for a solid cylinder. With these three inputs and
V,,, and M,, the stability derivatives are obtained

The characteristic polynomial for the autopilot can be derived from Figure 8-32b
and equated to the normalized cubic used in Equation (8-95a).

By equating coefficients of like order and transposing terms that do not involve the
control-loop gains, three simultaneous equations are obtained, which are expressed
as follows in matrix form.
+ Za
~ A O A O
(8- 109)

Here, bMs denotes the rate damping loop gain, acMs denotes the synthetic stability
loop gain, and a p denotes the accelerometer loop gain. Gains a, b, and c are derived
from these loop gains which are designed in Book 3 of the series.
The loop transmission of the autopilot is one of a conditionally stable system.
At low frequencies, the phase margin due to high attenuation rates must be large
enough to accommodate the phase shifts due to high-frequency lags yet to be mod-
540 Advanced Guidance Sustem Design Chap. 8

elcd. T h e LFPM is =90 - tan-'(ac~4l\l(bMa))~.For the purpose of computing

u6 due to RIN, the transfer function of the fifth-order system in Figure 8-32b is
identified as

Because of the complicated form of the definite integral over frequency o f the mag-
nitude squared of the transfer function of KA = (1 + CIV,)-' from minus to plus
infinity, the tabulated formula of Newton [I9571 is used to compute this function
numerically. However, an approximate literal solution of lower order maintains the
dimensionality of the results and is beneficial for showing the sensitivities to some
of the parameters. Such a solution is derived by defining the low- and high-frequency
asymptotes of Equation (8-1 10) and then integrating under these asymptotes using
the third-order noise integral formula. This gives
(approx.) us = 10.433 hV,Q;" ) h4, ] ] ~ I ~ ( T , T , ) ~ ' ~ ( T A O (8-111)
)~~*]
In Equation (8-1 1I), each of the time constants in the denominator is some fraction
of the guidance time constant, so that a5 can be shown to be inversely proportional
to T;(2;~6) . Given that the high-frequency asymptote cannot continue to infinity with
a sGpe of - 1. a multiplicative correction factor is constructed by integrating from
a fixed frequency to infinity under the high-frequency asymptote and then sub-
tracting this result from the result of applying Equation (8-1 1I). This correction
factor, denoted by CF, is then

In the preceding equation for CF, the fixed frequency is arbitrarily given a value
that is five timcs the rate-loop gain, and a typical value for C F i s 0.9. Thc preliminary
design procedure should concludc with the ability to roughly size up the control
surface actuator. It is not possible to estimate the hinge moment, but the product
of wi and .tls can provide a relativc reference relating to the size of the actuator.

Applications. At this point, many of the preceding cquations are used ro

obtain the numerical valucs for the parameters required of simulation. The tables
containing numerical valucs that follow also havc refcrcnccs to the pertinent equa-
tions, and the order in which thc cquations arc bcing uscd can be identificd from
thcir scqucntial listing in thc tables. The pararnctcrs in the tablcs are uscd in a
sirnulation that makcs usc of thc adjoint method to gcncratc nliss distanccs. Thcn,
a comparison is made bctwecn these miss distanccs resulting from simulation and
those produccd by using the design cquations. Prior to invoking the design equa-
tions, the ALP constants and C U B A N adjoints arc uscd to obtain the constants for
the CUSYN cquations. For thc examples that follow, a listing of the ALP constarlts
and C U B A N adjoints is givcn in Table 8-5a. For the ALI' constants, the zorlal
extremes wcrc uscd to dcfinc the operating points of the centcr of thc zone. Using
a value of 3.86 for the ratio a/Qa corresponds to a valuc of unity for $. The miss
Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Callbration and Compematlon 541

TABLE 8-5 (Prom [Travers, 19861 wlth permission from AACC)

a) Prwrarnrned Constants for Examples
ALP (Fig. 8-33b)
p*
5.00
= Kb = 3.43
P- 1.75 = P b = 3.52
K' =
3.0 A = 13.6
K- =
4.0 11. = 1/12
q = 117
CUBAN (Table 8-42 and Eq. (4) of Table 8-4)
M . = 1.24 M$+ = 1.21 M = 1.71
Myyb = 1.70 M,,th = 1.87 M ~ j b = 0.77
M = 3.43 Mti- = 6.59 M*,.. = 0.48

b) CUSYN Equations a n d Design Point for Examples

Shortened notation:
J 5 6;'; L E M umb; T
vC+/-JZ; I 'rg
CUSYN Equations (Table 8-4 and Eqs. (8-97))
Inputs
J.T: L = JT'i3.854 ;M = 0.9096JT5"
L,T: J = 3.854L/T2 ;M = 3.505LT1"
M,T: L = M/(3.505T1") ;J
1.0994MlT5"
=
M. L: J = 581.8L51M' ;T
(MIL)'/12.29
=
M, J: L
= ~~"J~'~13.572 ; T = 1.039(M/~)~"
L. J: T
= 1.963(LiJ)11' ; M = 4.911(Li"lJ"4)
CUSYN Design Point (AT is defined in Missile Sizing section)
Inputs: M = 12.5 ft. T = 0.65s. V, = 5000 ftls
Outputs: L = 4.42 ftlsiHzl" J = 40.3 ftls3/Hz112
AT = 3.2 g, + : / I = RSD of RIN = 885 x 1 0 - " a d / ~ z ~ ~ ~
MISSILE SIZING
Maneuver
Inputs: scale Sg = 4, a,,, = I5 deg (cases I & Ic), V, = 3500 ftls
factor
Missile
leneth
e = 17 ft, a,,, = 30 deg (cases I1 & IIc)
"
Outputs: see lines 2. 3, and 4 in Table 8-5c

c) Parameters for Examples (and Comparisons with Simulations)

Example
Line
Number Parameter Un~ts I la 11 IIa Ref.lEq. #
- -- - - -

1 amax d% 15 15 30 30
2 Tmmax sec 2.34 2.34 4.68 4.68 (8-99)
3 rTmln - 0.0625 0.0625 0.0313 0.0313 (8-100)
4 (est)~,, 62 11.86 11.86 11.86 11.86 (8-101)
5 aA - 2.5 1.8 2.5 1.8 (8-95d)
6 PA - 2.3 1.8 2.3 1.8
 542 Advanced Guidance Sljstem Design Chap. 8

TABLE 8-5c (Continued)

-
Example
Line
Number Parameter Units 1 la 11 Ila Ref./Eq. #

sec
sec
-

KA 5 (1 + C!
Vrn) -'
22 LFPM deg Low frequency
phase margin
w, = V ~ I T ~sec- ' (8- 107)
mi rad/sec2 15(8-I 12)
u6bMa radlsec3
U", g
DESIGN
RMS RMS MISS FROM
rT/2 Sm MISS SIMULATION

+ 1.3 31.1
0 1.3 16.3
- 1.3 31.7

*The adjoints M,r+ arc divergent.

Sec. 8.4 Radome Error Callbratlon and Compensation 543

adjoints listed undcr CUBAN in Tablc 8-5a arc from Tablc 8-4a. Substituting these
values for the adjoints in Equation (8-100), the ratio of maximum to minimum
miss is expected to be 1.9. Table 8-5b lists the six CUSYN equations based on the
adjoints of Table 8-5a. Now, in starting the examples, it is noted that any two of
the four system parameters can be used as inputs. A step of target acceleration of
3.2 g with a random uniform distribution over the 6.5-sic interval before intercept
is listed in Tablc 8-4b. From Equation (2-20d) T, = 0.1 sec, and from Tablc 8-5b
r)' (an RMS value of RIN) = 2 millirad. The remaining portion of Tablc 8-5b deals
with thc inputs for sizing the missile. Two values of a,,,.,,= 15 and 31)deg are used
to highlight design sensitivities to this factor. The results of using the sizing equa-
tions are given in Table 8-5c, in which 35 numbered lines of data are arranged in
columns that correspond to the examples and subexamples. The first line of data is
for a,,, specified for the two designs. Lines 2-4 are the data that result from using
Equations (8-99) through (8-101) to obtain (T,),,,, r ~ , , , , ,and (est) ow,,respec-
tively. The decision is made at this point to design to the indicated values for (T,),,,,
which is equivalent to placing the easiest requirements on the missile. That is, the
missile is required to simply meet the specified maximum acceleration with no
excess.
The value of 11.9 g for a,,in line 4, for a missile whose capability is by
definition only 12.8 g (4 x 3.2), clearly reflects a level of commanded acceleration
due to noise that is not consistent with the requirement that the missile operate
linearly. As a result, the two examples are further subdivided into additional cases,
and, for each of the two missiles, different dynamics are now entered for the forward
path. In lines 5 and 6, a* and PA, which are the cubic operating points of the
autopilot, are equal to 2.5 and 2.3, respectively. The quadratic roots of the autopilot
have a damping ratio 5.4 = 0.67 whereas for the other values 5.4 = 0.4. In lines 7
, and T, are determined in an iterative process which assures that the
and 8, T ~ T,,
equality of the actual .i, is equal to that required in Equation (8-105). They follow
the rule of 118 closely, while 7, and T, are deliberately made larger in column Ia to
reduce the value of a,, in line 26. The preceding remarks also hold for the other
two columns respectively. Thus, the subdivision into four columns is motivated by
the need to do something about (est) D,,. As a result, A and r b are determined. In
columns I and 11, (est) a,, agrees well with the actual a,,.The only way to increase
T, and T, would be to make the autopilot faster. However, increasing the speed of
the autopilot by scaling TA"means that faster servos would be required and the
value of a* would also increase. In columns Ia and IIa, these effects have been
circumvented temporarily by reducing the quadratic damping ratio when the au-
topilot was made faster. In spite of this, the lower damping ratio in the autopilot
will only make it harder to increase the order of the autopilot with the dynamics
of the actuators, instruments, and structure, and so on. The final solution may
involve reducing the amount of noise or increasing the time constant of the system.
In lines 11 and 12, (Zs/Z,),, and (6/a),, are inputs used to estimate the stability
derivatives, M a , Ma, - V - V,Zs, and I*. in lines 13-17. The differences in
 544 Advanced Guidance Sustem Design Chap. 8

values across the columns are connected with the different outboard profiles of
missiles designed for two different a,,,,,. As a result (L varies by a factor of three.
Lines 18-23 are attributes of the autopilot, and line 23 in particular lists the gain
crossover frequency of the seeker loop gyro, which is related to T2. Lines 24-26
are related to the computed levels of control activity, while lines 27-29 list the RMs
miss distance for positive, zero, and negative radome slopes as designed and as
simulated for the four cases. By examining the values across the columns in line
29, it can be seen that the largest errors occur with negative radome slopes and with
higher a.Also, the simulation results in lines 30-32 show that decreasing T2 fourfold
t o approximate the effects of perfect body-motion isolation causes a reduction in
miss distance, which is greatest for negative radome slope. A divergent increase in
miss distance can be seen in line 30, columns Ia and IIa. This divergence is brought
about by the onset of high-frequency instability at positive radome slope, a well-
known phenomenon that is discussed in Nesline and Zarchan [1984(b)]. The last
group of simulations concerns approximating
..
the effect of neglecting the airframe
zeros. To this end, Z s was made zero and the miss distance consequently decreases
as compared to the design values with no miss scale factor, as shown in lines 33-
35. Here, the largest percent reduction occurs with positive radome slope.

8.5 COMMAND VERSUS SEMIACTIVE HOMING GUIDANCE

SYSTEM DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

Comparison of command versus homing guidance is presented in this sccrion. Fur-

ther details appear in [Alpcrt, 1988; Durieux, 1984; East, 1984; Neslines, 19861.

8.5.1 Modeling

As notcd in Chapter 6, semiactive homing missile systems and command guided

missile systems both continue to be in operation today. The analysis in this section
assumes perfectly known ranges and closing velocity. Figure 8-34a is the standard
linearized system block diagram of the missile intercept problem that uses synthetic
PNG in the command guidance mode, which rcquires range estimate R to obtain
the LOS angle. As shown in Figure 6-35b, synthetic PNG differs from standard
PNG only in that the former rcquires LOS from the missile to thc targct to be
mathematically cor~structcd bascd on fire-control radar mcasurcmcnts. Consc-
qucntly, i t contains the radar's mcasuremcnt errors of the missile and target. It is
not rcquired to know thc rangc with homing systcms because thc geometrical LOS
is obtained strictly from the physics of the situation. Therefore, homing systcrns
do not have to perform any rangc measurements as is necessary in the casc of
command guidance. Boresight error, which is proportional to the LOS ratc, is
measurcd by the homing seeker. As command guidance docs not employ a scckcr,
however, the LOS ratc must bc reconstructed from thc derivative nctwork (see
Figurc 6-35b(i)). Figure 8-34a contains the firc-control radar noises prcsent in a
Sec. 8.5 Command versus Semiactive Homing Guidance System 545

MISSILE TARGET
TRACKING NOISES TRACKING NOISES
RANGE DEPENDENT NOISES

RANGE

b-pa&E
NOISES

"
,
'
P
O
1
-I1
AVC8
T
+
h
11s

IMPULSE
ACCELERATION

Figure 8-34 (a) Command Guidance System Diagram with Noises (b) Adjoint
Diagram of Command Guidance System with Range-Dependent Noise (c) Equiv-
alent Adjoint Diagram of Command Guidance System with Range-Dependent
Noise (Frotrr [Alpert, 19881, O 1988 AIAA)

command guidance system. Again, the system is assumed to be fifth order. All the
noises are input at the point just before the division by the range estimate. The rate
f, at which the fire-control radar tracks the missile and the target is assumed to be
high enough so that the track loop can be considered continuous, and not sampled
data. Before entering the guidance loop, all fire-control radar noises, which are in
angular units, are multiplied by the range from the radar to the object being tracked
(that is, R T for the target and R , for the missile). The adjoint system diagram (see
Figure 8-34b) from the linearized system diagram, often called the forward system
546 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

diagram (see Figure 8-34a). A multiplying factor of R'% is used for the track of the
target (or R: for the track of the missile) between the point at which the signal
leaves the adjoint of the homing loop as ~ C L Tand the place where it enters the
integrator. System analysis of the dependence of range to intercept of Command
guidance system performance is discussed in Section 8.5.2 where c l o ~ e d - f o r ~
steady-state adjoint solutions for statistical miss distance are derived for Command
guidance systems that use PNG. Command.versus semiactive guidance system per-
formance at specific ranges to intercept is discussed in Section 8.5.3.

Semiactive homing guidance dynamics. The guidance filter of Figure

7-6b is shown in discrete domain in Figure 8-35a. As in Chapter 7, y, is the input
signal to the Kalman filter, which is followed by the guidance law and FCS to
generate missile acceleration A,,. Figures 8-35b shows the complete homing loop
dynamics for the semiactive system employing optimal guidance system (OGS).
LOS angle u is sampled at a 100-Hz rate and then is converted to y, by multiplying
by R. Since l? is assumed to be known perfectly, the seeker model becomes a
measurement of y, corrupted by noise.

Command guidance dynamics. Figure 8-3% shows the complete com-

mand guidance loop dynamics employing OGS. The ground antenna and receiver

I
I
I
I
I
I
I UALMAN F I L T E R
I------ --
(A)

Figure 8-35 (a) Discrete Kalman Filter and Optimal Guidance Law (b) Semiactive Homing
Loop (Forward Time) (c) Command Guided System (Forward Time) (From /Nerlincr, 19861
with permirsio~ifnrm AACC)
Sec. 8.5 Command versus Semiactive Homlng Guldance System 547

GLINT CORRELATION
-
ITS = SAMPLING INTERVAL.
TN CORRELATION TIME CONSTANT)

GLINT NOlSE
I (1 GL11121 I

9- RANGE INDEPENDENT NOlSE

DISCRETE ANGLE NOISE

Of
MISSILE
FLIGHT
CONTROL
LSGAGL+\T GEOMETRY SEEKER SYSTEM krml
Yr
J-%
klml 100 HI
SAMPLER FILTER
AND

- 4, \
GUIDANCE
LAW
-
100 HZ
SAMPLER
ISEE FIG 2Al

ATMOSPHERIC NOlSE ROLLOFF FILTERS

THERMAL YOlSE
4"

-J
RANGE INDEPENDENT NOISE I
ATMOSPHERIC NOlSE
Or I 0 ATM 1 4 I

DISCRETE ANGLE NOlSE

MISSILE FLIGHT
CONTROL SYSTEM
1
I T ~ S + ~ , ~
KALMAN
E\GAGEUL\T FILTER
GEOMEIRY SAMPLER GROUND AND
RADAR

Ym
GUIDANCE
LAW
-Phq -
100 HZ
SAMPLER
- -

SAMPLER TRACKER ENGAGEMENT

GEOMETRY
(C)

Figure 8-35 (Continued)

548 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

measure O,,, and O T . Unlike homing, the radar must also measure various range
infor~nationR T , R,,,, and R in order to convert Or and O,,, to y coordinates by y T
= RTeT, >I,,, = ~ , , , 0 , , ,and
, y,. = f T - f,,, to obtain the LOS angle u = y , . l ~(these
measurements are referred to as R T , R,,,, and R ) . In the command guidance system,
separate noise terms corrupt the measurements o f 0 T and O,,,. It is assumed that this
missile has a transponder and therefore the measurement of O,, is perfect co~npared
to that of 0 T .

Noise inputs. In addition to glint noise ~ , ~ i i , , ,semiactive

, systems must
deal with range-independent noise (RIN) af and range-dependent (or thermal) re-
ceiver noise v,.,, sources. The major noise sources (on the measurement of Or) in
the command guidance system are atmospheric fluctuation of the signal from ground
radar to the target u , ~ , RIN af on the ground radar, and range-dependent noise
or,,on the ground radar. Thus, there are six major noise sources to be considered,
three for the homing systeln and three for the command guidance system, each with
different variance and frequency spectral content. The measurements (and hence the
noise on them) are multiplied by R in the semiactive honling systeln and R T in the
command guidance system to obtain y,, for input to the guidance loop. In the case
o f the semiactive homing system. R, and hence the noise on y,, go to zero at the
end of flight. However, the noise on 11, in the command guidance system, because
o f its dependency on R T , does not fall off to zero as the missile approaches the
target. The larger the distance alvay from the radar a t which intercepts occur, the
larger the value of R7- and, hence. the more noise that enters the system. 111 this
last respect, thcre is an advantage associated with the semiactive homing system. It
is shown that the range dependence of the noisc sets basic limitations on the effcc-
tivencss of a command guidance system.
Glint Noise a,li.,. The 1'SIl +,, of the target glint )I, is givcn by Equation
(2-20b). )I,, is divided by R in the senliactive homing case or R T in the command
guided case to create u,,,,,,,.Uccause glint noise is quite small in the command guid-
ance since the receiver never gcts close to the target (that is, R T is always large).
this noise can be neglected in command guided systems.
Range-Independent Noise ( R I N ) a,. The semiactive RIN I'SD is givcn by
Equation (?-?(Id). In c o n ~ c r t i n ga to 11 the It1N noisc is multiplied by R and 11cncc
approaches zero a t the end of the flight. Uccausc the ground rcccivcr is usually c'r
bcttcr quality than the missilc-borne rcccivcr, the I'S1) of v, i n the command guid-
ance is smaller than that of thc semiactive systcm. Thc I'S11 of or in con111la11d
guidance is 6, = ~ , , ~ . , . l\rlicrc
f, rloy = (B,,.lBs,c)', f , is the data rate in Hz, B,,, is
thc bcamwidtll of radar aperture, and BsH is the heam-splitting ratio for large signal-
to-noise ratio (SIN).
Range-Dependent Noise a,.. The variance of a,,can bc computed \Barton
and Ward, 19841 as
r,, = (B,.)'I[~K;,(SIN)], K,,, = figure of merit
Sec. 8.5 Command versus Semfactiue Homing Guidance System 549

Since SIN is a function of range, thermal noise is likewise range dependent. SIN
can be calculated from the semiactive radar range equation as follows:

wherc K is the SIN a t the reference ranges RTI)and Ro. Rn, is the target-to-illu-
minator reference range, and Ro is the target-to-missile reference range. Substituting
Equation (8-114) into Equation (8-113) yields the same form of variance as in
Equation (2-300 as r,,,.q,., = r ,,,, [ ~ r ~ l ( R m ~ =r ,r,,,,,(~lR,,)'
)]~ wherc r,,,,,,, is
the variance of thermal noises at R T = Rn, and R = R,,. I11 this section R m =
124,000 ft, Ro = 16,000 ft, r,,,,,,, = 10'' rad'. Then the semiactive receiver noise
PSD $r,,S;I is given by Equation (2-20e). The command guided S/N is

where K, is the SIN at the reference target to illuminator range RREF. The reference
range is determined from radar system parameters. Substituting Equation (8-1 15a)
for the SIN into Equations (8-113) and (2-20e) gives the command guided range-
dependent noise variance and PSD
(variance) r,,,, = r,,, ,,*,,, (RTIRREF)~. (8- 115b)

where

and 2 T,,, = llf,, and o r is the radar cross section in m2. Before being converted
to a positional noise, the command guidance angular thermal noise, which is already
a function of the square of the range from the radar to the target, is multiplied once
more by the same range $,nc, = @ m ~ R E F ( ~ $ / RIf $the~ ~missile
). carries a beacon,
then $mC = where $ R D ~ Jand ~ ~ RREF
~ are defined for the
beacon.

Atmospheric Noise UAN. Another factor that causes deviations of the ap-
parent target position as seen by the radar tracker is atmospheric perturbation of
the radar signal. Atmospheric noise statistics are taken from experimental tracking
tests from which empirical formulae are derived [Barton and Ward, 19841. This
effect, while very small in the semiactive system, may be quite significant in the
command guidance system. The former is true because of the short missile-to-target
distance. One way of computing $AN is $AN = $AN,&* where @ A N , ~ F =
~ T A . V I A Nf~,~/~~ " R*
~ , is the path length in m to tracked object in lower 5 k m of
atmosphere, w is the antenna aperture in m, (standard deviation of U A N ) rykner:=
550 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

.44 x lo-' rad, T A N is the atmospheric noise correlation time (0.6 sec), and f, is
the correlated noise coefficient (0.4, see Alpert [I9881 on correlated noise effects).
Total Angular Noise PSD 4,. The total angular noise PSD 4, for the
semiactive homing guidance is given in Equation (2-23), while that for the Command
guidance is given by

8.5.2 Miss-Distance Analysis for Command Guidance

The treatment described here, based on the excellent work of Alpert [1988], derives
new analytical equations based on adjoint theory for statistical miss distance caused
by target maneuver, range-dependent, servo, glint, and atmospheric noises for com-
mand guidance. An optimal total guidance system time constant T ,is also derived
which yields the minimum statistical miss distance, taking into account realistic
constraints on the minimum achievable T,. The steady-state adjoint solution for
miss distance is developed here only for the RIN. Looking at Figure 8-34a, using
the binomial theorem,

Using Equation (8-117), Figure 8-34c can be developed from Figure 8-34b. The
output of the integrator with 1,: as a factor in the integrand reaches a steady-state
value a t :,,, that is, K,,T,;;-', where K,, are the normalized adjoint coefficients given
by

Kt = , t+=o ( ) I * ) d * t* = t, is the adjoint time (8-118)

Consequently, the steady-state adjoint mean-square (MS) miss distance due to range
dependence is:

This same procedure call bc used to derive the miss distances for atrnosphcric I I O ~ S C
and R1N. When this is done, the steady-statc adjoint solution for MS miss distance
caused by target maneuver is o ~ , , ~ . ~ ,=, , b,K,\I
, . ~ 7,: whcrc

K.u = 7 ,'$'
7. I*==('
[J; C.(J; , ~ , ; ~ ~ ( tdl*
*) +
)
1 dl* dl*
I dl*

Table 8-6a contains the values of normalized adjoint coefficients K,, through
and K M for A = 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Note that KO = M:, KA, = M$,, and K2 =
M:,-whcrc M,, il4i-,. and M,,-arc dcfincd in Figurc 6-42. Thc stcady-statc adjoint
Sec. 8.5 Command versus Semlactlue HomIng Guldance System 551

equations for the mean-square command guidance miss distance due to each noise
source arc given in Table 8-6b together with those for target maneuver. Table 8-
6b also lists the corresponding equations for the scmiactivc homing guidance case.
It 1s assumed from here on that only RIN and atmospheric noise need be considered.
This could be the case, for example, if the missile carries a beacon. The variance of
the total miss dist'lnce is the sum of the variances of the miss distances duc to each
noise sotlrcc and due to target mancuvcr. That is,

A good approximation to Equation (8-120) that keeps the largest terms of each
polynomial is given by

where
range.
xx ++ can be identified as the sum of spectral noise densities a t the intercept
corresponds to +,, in Equation (2-23) for homing guidance. Equation
(8-121) shows that the variance of the miss due to the noises is approximately
inversely proportional to T , ~and
, the variance of the miss due to target maneuver
is proportional to the fifth power of T,?. The optimal time constant for minimum
RMS miss distance can be found by setting the partial derivative of the expression
with respect to T~ equal to zero. This gives

(K"C + 'I6
Optimal time constant: (T,~),,, = 0.2
)
K.LI+~

Minimum RMS miss distance: U . U I ~ ~ ~=1.25

,~\.
[ ( ox 4
. I
)]1'2 (8-123)

For this optimal condition, maneuver miss distance accounts for 41 percent of the
total RMS miss distances. Note that (7JOPT in Equation (8-122) and UMISS.~IJ.V in
Equation (8-123) have the same formulae as in Equation (7-34) for T and (7-35)
for a,, (9, respectively, for homing guidance.
 552 Aduanced Guldance System Design Chap. 8

TABLE 8-6 (From [Alpert 19881,O 1988 AIAA)

-
a) Normalized steady-state m i s s d i s t a n c e adjoint
coemcients C) Parameter values u s e d in t h e examples

I
BW = 0.035 rad (2 deg) Beamwidth
1 S/.YKEF = 100 (20 dB) Reference S/.V a t
I reference
KI 4.4 6.7 10.0 range RREF
K2 9.2 15.6 25.7 RREF = 50,000 m Reference range
K3 25.9 47.6 84.8 u .r = 100, 10, 1, 0.1 m2 Radar-cross-
K4 89.7 176.0 336.0 section
Ks 365.0 742.0 1541.0 f s = 40 Hz Data rate
K6 1707.0 3750.0 7979.0 BSR = 80 Beam split ratio
K.w 3.77 2.38 1.98 for large S/,V
U', = 10m Wing span of
b) Steady-state adjoint m i s s distance e q u a t i o n s target
Command guidatire .for farget fvatka TGLT = 0.08 s Glint noise
correlation
time
UI = I m Antenna
aperture
7.4- = 0.6 s Atmospheric
noise
correlation
time"
A = 3 Navigation ratio
v . ~ = 1500 m/s Missile \relocity
VT = 450 mls Target velocity
(positive for
incoming
target)
11 T = 19.6 mls' (2 g) Target
2 maneuver
~ M I S S Y I . Y= ( b r K . ~ ~ ~ ;
level
Homing guidai~teb T,tr = 2.5 s Target maneuver
timeb
( T ~ ) . \ I I . ~ = 0.5 Minimum
achievable
system time
constant'
U,,C~:LIM = 98 nils2 (10 g) Maximum
allowable
missile
acceleration
causcd by
noised
#

' Assunied target altitude is helow 5 km, hence R'

= It.
For a Poisson-distributed step targrt nlancu\'er
' For missile track MI' replaces I/.,.. with average time between maneuvers TI., use T.rf
Rb = R I ~ ~ ~ R MtheT product
, , ~ ~ of the illumina- = 0.25 T p ; here T p = 10 s.
tor-to-target range and missile-to-target range at ' Used only in numerical Examples 2 and 3.
which thcrc is S/&cc~ on a 1 m 2 target. * Used only in numerical Example 3.
 Sec. 8.5 Command versus Semiactive Homing Guidance System

TABLE 8-6 (Continued)

d) Normalized steady-state acceleration ad.

joint coefIlclents K;(nr) for a flfth-ordersystem
with equally distributed time constants

Asymptotic system performance. At this point (following discussions

in Alpert [1988]), a set of equations is developed to describe asymptotic miss-distance
performance, each of which represents U.~rlssLrr, which could be achieved if only
one class of guidance noise were present. Sources of guidance noise influence min-
imum RMS miss distance through x+ defined by Equation (8-121). Since, how-
ever, the relative magnitudes of the terms in 2 4 depend explicitly on intercept
range, at any particular intercept range one noise term will dominate. The
u . t ~ l s s . , , , , that would be expected if only this dominant noise terni were considered
along with the maneuver term is what defines asymptotic miss distance. At the
shortest intercept range, glint dominates and miss distance is independent of intercept
range. Using the notation (CLT) to indicate that the glint noise dominates,

As intercept range is increased, the RIN miss distance eventually increases to be

equal to that of glint noise miss distance, at a range of

Beyond this range the asymptotic miss is

~ M I S S M ~ X ~=R ~ ~ , 1.25[K~+,(2Ko+f)5 11 / 1 2 ~r 5 / 6 (8-124c)

In this region, where the RIN dominates, the asymptotic miss distance is propor-
tional to the five-sixths power of intercept range. In the next region, where the
intercept range is larger than
Rlz = +fl+~~nap (8-124d)
the atmospheric noise dominates and the asymptotic miss distance is
5 1/12 514
~ M I S S M I N ( A ~\)=
> ~ . ~ ~ [ K M + S ( ~ K O + A] N RREI F ) (8-124e)
554 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

The miss distance is proportional to the fire-fourths power of intercept range. T h e

RIN dominates at intercept ranges larger than
113
R13 = ( 2 s T + A . V ~ E ~ - R ~ E F ~ ~ R D N H U F ) (8-124~
The asymptotic miss distance is

The miss distance is proportional to intercept range to the five-halves power. T o

draw asymptotic miss distance on log-log paper, it is only necessary to assign values
to the various system parameters, evaluate the critical range points of Equations (8-
124b, d, and Q, and compute the miss distances of Equations (8-124a, c, e, and g).
Between regions, only the slope of the miss distance curve with respect to intercept
range varies. These miss distance curves (Figures 8-36a, b, d, e) are asymptotes of
the minimum RMS miss distance that contain maneuver and the largest noise con-
tributor (that is, glint, range-independent, atmospheric, or RIN noise).

Example 8-4. Numerical results presented here illustrate the methodology

presented earlier. Table 8-6c contains the numerical values of system variables where
4, = r~$iT.,,is the target acceleration PSD and r 7 and~ T,,, are defined in Table 8-
6c. Figure 8-36a is the plot of the asymptotic miss distances for the example, while
the cxact solutions are presented in Figure 8-36b as curves with dots over a copy
o f Figure 8-36a. The cxact solution is calculated from Equation (8-120). It can be
seen that the asymptotes and the exact solution agree well ovcr most of the curves
except near breakpoints in the asymptotes. Figure 8-36c contains thc time constants,
~ ' ~Equation (8-122)], corresponding to thc csact solutions of Figure 8-
( 7 . c ) ~[SCC
36b. Also displayed are the asymptotes of ( T ~ ) ~ ) I >calculated
T from the mancuver
spectral dcnsity and thc donlinatlt noise spectral density.

System time constant and missile acceleration limits. The rcsults

ofthe prcvious section arc in rcality subjcct to limitations on the minimum achievable
total T,? and niaxit~lumachicvablc tnissilc accelcration. Thc dcvelopmcnt so far im-
plicitly assumed that therc was no bound on the achievable T , nor on the achicvable
nlissilc accelcration. 111 real physical systems, missile autopilots and airframcs he-
comc difficult, if not impossible, to dcsign as thc autopilot-airframe response-time
constant requircd bccoincs very short. This irr~poscsa lolvcr bound on the achievable
(T,~),,,,,,. defined prc\,iously is only \.slid as long as it escecds (T,),,,,,,at cach
(7,C)c)1J-1.

Figure 8-36 (a) A s y n t ~ t o r i cMiss 1)istartccs o f l>ornit~antNoise atid Matieuvcr

k)r Examplc 1 (b) I)o~~litianrNoisc and Mancuvcr Miss Ilista~iccAsymptotcs and
Exact S o l u t i o ~for~ Examplc 1 (c) Optimal Timc Constatits and Asymptotcs for
E x : ~ n ~ p 1l r (d) Noisc-Mar~cuvcrAsymptotcs \\.it11 Minimum Tirne Constant Con-
stralllt and Exact S o l u t ~ o n ,Example 2 (c) Noise-Mancuvcr Asymptotcs with and
witliout Acrclrrati(~nLimits nnd Exact Solution, Exaniplr 3 (1:rd111 /Alprrr, 191181,
0 19x8 .41.4.4J
Sec. 8.5 Command versus Semiactive Homlng Guidance System 555

2 -
\ '~lss.,.,,,,,
1 I,, , , , ,
3 5 10 20 30 40 50 100
INTERCEPT RANGE (km)
INTERCEPT RANGE Ikm)
(A) (B)
25
-- 20
I-
15
2'
a
z
0 10
U
08
EI-
,0 6
2
I-
O5
n 04
0
<03
D
0
C

02
3 5 10 20 30 4 0 50 100
INTERCEPT RANGE Ikm)
INTERCEPT RANGE Ikm) (D)
(C)

- "WIS~MINI~IN,

- 1
3 6 10 20 304060 100
INTERCEPT RANOE Ikm)
(E)
556 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

operation point (that is, intercept range). Equation (8-121) shows that, for 7 , greater
than (7,)0pT, the miss distance is determined mainly by the maneuver miss. con-
sequently, the asymptotic miss for the minimum achievable 7, is approximately
u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ =
~ ( (T
+ ,q~ ~. , ,, ) w~ ' ,~ ~( 7~~ )where
2 : ~ the notation MIN[(T,),,,,] indicates that
the minimum miss distance is set by the minimum time constant constraint.

Example 8-5. The asymptotic miss corresponding to (7,),,,;,, = 0.3 is plot-

ted in Figure 8-36d, in which it appears as the horizontal line at the 4.2-m level,
The only difference between this example and Example 8-4 is that the time constant
limitation is now included. Exact solutions [Equation (8-120)] are represented as
curves with dots, and it can be seen that there is good agreement bet\veen the
asymptotes and the exact solutions. Comparison with Figure 8-36b indicates that
the minimum 7, limitation increases miss distance only at short ranges. Another
realistic limitation that must be taken into account, as discussed in Alpert [1988],
is the maximum achievable missile accleration. If the guidance system were to
achieve more acceleration than the system design limit, the resulting miss distance
would probably be very large due to component failure. If internal limits imposed
on the acceleration command are exceeded by noise-induced acceleration commands,
then no acccleration capability is available to counter target maneuver. This would
also producc large miss distance. Good design practice, therefore, avoids acceleration
saturation as shown previously. Here, it is shown that acceleration saturation due
to noises can be avoidcd by i~nposinganother minimum timc constant constraint
that is depcndent on system parameters and intcrccpt range. The adjoint technique
can be used to develop cquations for the RMS accelerations induccd by noises. Using
the same adjoint systcm as for the miss distance. the impulse is instcad applied at
thc point corrcspo~~ding to commanded accclcration in the basic fortvard system
diagram. Thc adjoint rcsults then bccornc accclcrations instcad of miss distances.
Follo\ving the previous dcvclopn~cnt,which deals with the steady-state adjoint SO-
lutions, equatiolls can be dcvclopcd for IIMS accelerations that are similar to the
equations of Table 8-6b. A ncw set of normalized steady-state adjoint coefficients
K;, arc found by applying the impulse at A, whcre A is the r, bcforc intercept at
which the acceleration occurs. Thesc coefficicnts increase with dccrcasing (,, or as
thc point of intcrccpt is approached. Thc rcsulting RMS comtnandcd accclcration
is writtcn as a polynomial cxprcssion in tcrnls of missile and target vclocity and
missilc T , ~ .Once again, keeping only the dominant terms, thc variance of the corn-
mandcd accelcratiorl duc to noise alone can bc approximated as uXcc:(t,v) =
(x 4)K;,(/,,.)7,<'. It is ncccssary to hold thc comrna~~dcd accclcration bclow a spec-
ified value only until about onc 7, bcforc intcrccpt. Thc rcason is that any commands
issucd aftcr that timc would have littlc cffcct. Table 8-6d c o ~ ~ t a i numerical ns values
o f K;, for 1 , equal to 7 , to 3 7 , and for thc navigation ratios A = 3, 3.5, and 4, for
a fifth-ordcr systctn with cqually distributcd timc constants. Thc variancc of the
noisc-induccd accclcration com~nandis invcrscly proportional to the fifth power 0f
T~ The minimum T , ~ ,thcrcforc, that causcs thc rnissilc to avoid accclcration satu-
ration at the spccificd r , is givcn by T A C C L I . ~ , = ( ( ~ ~ ) [ K ; ~ ( ( , ) I U $ C C Lwhere
IM])'~~
Sec. 8.5 Command versus Semlactiue Homing Guidance System 557

u..,cc~f.,~ = specified limit 011 acceleration saturation caused by noises. It should be

ren~enibcrcdthat this timc constant constraint is imposed only if the computed time
constant is larger than (T,~),,,,,,and ( T ~ ) O I > Tto, achieve minimum miss distance. As
happens with longer ranges, the timc constant must son~etirnesbe constrained by
accclcration limits. In this case, miss distancc will be determined mainly by the
maneuver RMS miss distancc, which is uL1,ss,,,l.,z~..,,:, :,,,,,, = ( ~ b ) b 3 ~ . + , ~ X ( t y ) l
u ~ ( : ~ : ~where
. ~ . , ~the notation ..ICCLl.LI indicates that thc minimum miss is set by
the acceleration limit. Conscclucntly, by requiring the missile to remain below the
acceleration limit. the noise level determines the maneuver miss which dominates
the total miss distance.

Example 8-6. The curve with dots in Figure 8-36e shows the exact adjoint
solution for the 10 dBsm target of Example 8-5. For this curve, T ~ c c L l n is l used
as T whenever T.A.(:CLI.LI > ( T , ~ ) Oand ~ T (T,),,,,,, for the case where UACCLIM = 98 m l
sec' at !,= T,,, the acceleration command due to noise is limited at one time constant
before intercept. The plotted solid line asymptotes are the same as in Figure 8-36d,
and the dashed lines are the asymptotes of maneuver RMS miss distance,
( T ~ ~ ,,, r., .~ , , ~ r .,,.,,,r,
, 2 iS presented in Example 8-3. It can be seen that the exact solution is
close to the maximum of the dashed and solid line asymptotes.

8.5.3 Analysis of Optimal Command Guidance Versus

Optimal Semiactive Homing Guidance

Using adjoint theory, this section presents an analysis of optimal command guidance
versus optimal semiactive missile guidance based on an excellent paper by Neslines
[1986]. The Kalman filter and optimal control law gains are both generated in for-
ward time and read back in reverse time for the adjoint run. The command accel-
eration M, is an input to an analog third-order FCS which generates the achieved
missile acceleration A l W yUniformly
. distributed target maneuver shown in Figure
2-21d is assumed in this section. The target acceleration PSD +,is given by Equation
(2-39).

Noise inputs. The noise inputs for the analysis in this section have been
discussed previously except the following. All noises are considered to be on the
discrete measurement o f u or 6T, as indicated in Figures 8-35b and 8-35c, the
discrete measurements are made at .O1 sec intervals.
G l i n t Noise. Glint noise PSD +,
is obtained by applying Equation (2-20b)
assuming a medium-size airplane target with YCLT = 25 ft2 and TCLT = O.j/Hz.
Range-lndependent Noise ( R I N ) . +f is assumed to be 2.5 x lo-' rad2,
sampled at a 100-Hz rate.
Range-Dependent Noise. Y,,,~,,,. = 4 X rad2 and RREF= 1.28 X 10'
ft.
 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. g,

Atmospheric Noise. Using empirical data presented in Barton and Ward

[19841, the variance of atmospheric noise for a target at 20-deg angle above the earth
is

where L , is the length o f radar beam in lower troposphere (15,000 m), and Wl is
the radar aperture in meters (3.05 m). Therefore from Equation (8-125), r,!& = . o l
mr. The atmospheric noise PSD $A.v rolls off sharply with frequency. This roll-
off may be approximated by two first-order low-pass filters with frequency breaks
a t f,.,which can be calculated using

where f,,is the cut-off frequency of two first-order filters and V Ais the transverse
velocity of radar beam through atmosphere (measured in mls). The break frequency
f, calculated from Equation (8-126) for a roughly stationary radar beam and a
normal atmospheric drift of about 3 mlsec is 0.46 Hz.

Kalman filter analysis. The square root spectral density &A''(defined in

Equation (2-23) for homing guidancc and in Equation (8-116) for command guid-
ancc) is plotted in Figure 8-37a for the short-range intercept case and in Figure 8-
37b for the long-range intercept using different scales. For reasonably stationary
signal and noise statistics, the transfer function from the input y, to the output y,
o f thc Kalman filter is given by Equation (7-34) whose F is plotted in Figures 8-
37c and 8-37d for the short- and long-range intercept, respectively. As already
mentioncd, the homing +:I2 dcpends on missile-target range, and the variation in
this quantity during the flight, for the exarnplc here, is shown in Figure
8-37a. Hcrc, 4;;' is grcatesr at the beginning of flight because of the thermal noise
and dccrcases monotonically throughout the flight's duration. Thcre is an increase
in angular glint noise at the end of the flight but is small compared to the thermal
noisc. Because +L'%s low for short-range intcrcept in both systcms; cach has rather
fast Kalman filter. Still, thc filter in the command guidance is faster. Owing to the
largc amount of thcrmal noise, F of the homing is small at the beginning o f flight
but then slo\vly increases as a result of the decrease in the noisc as the missilc draws
nearcr to thc targct. F of the homing is, in fact, a function of thc SIN. While the
state cstimatc is poor a t the beginning of flight \vhcrc F is small, it bccomcs quite
good as thc missilc approaches thc targct. O n e rcason for which thc Kalman filter
~ O S S C S S C Sthc bcst pcrformancc is that, a t thc bcginning of thc flight, its large time
constant for dealing with thermal noisc docs not influcncc thc miss due to target
nlancuver at thc end of t11c flight. For long-range intcrccpt, 4;' in the scrniactive
homing guidancc is at first larger than that in the command guidance but later
bccomcs smaller. This is a result of thc forrncr's dcpcndcncc on R, which as stated
bcforc, goes to zcro. F of thc homing in thc semiactive systcm increases to ap-
proxinlatcly thc same valuc as in the short-range casc, whilc F in thc command
guidance remains low throughout thc flight bccausc thc I'SD o f thc rncasurcnlcllt
 Sec. 8.5 Command versus Semiactive Homfng Guidance System 559

20 I I
1
18

12
!
1
i

8 ~
4
COMMAND

0
0 1 2 3 4 E
TlME (SEC) TlME (SECI
(A) (B)

.
n
2- 32
! !
2.8 I

2.4 !
z HOMING

-1
Y
3 !
1.6
a
1.2
0 I I

-
K
0.8 COMMANO ' I

u 0.4
k
0 I
2 O O 2 4 6 8 10
TlME (SECI 2o TIME (SEC)
(C)

Figure 8-37 (a) Command Noise Is Less than Homing Noise at Short Target-to-
Illuminator Ranges (b) Homing Noise Becomes Less than Command Noise at Long
Target-to-Illuminator Ranges (c) Commmand Characteristic Frequency Is Higher
than Homing at Short Target-to-Illuminator Ranges (d) Homing Characteristic Fre-
quency Becomes Higher than Command at Long Target-to-llluminator Ranges
(From [Nerliner, 19861 with permission from AACC)

noise is a function of R r , which remains large. If the filter is slower than, say the
guidance law and FCS, then its speed of response will limit the overall system speed
of response. Consequently, the miss distance and required accelerations against ma-
neuvering targets will also increase. If the filter is much faster than the other com-
ponents of the system, system response will be for the most part determined by the
slower components. In this case, filter dynamics will have little impact on perfor-
mance.

Performance analysis. A reasonable measure of miss distance and ac-

celeration requirement due to a maneuvering target can be obtained by assuming a
l-g target acceleration, which can occur at any time throughout the flight with
560 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

unifor~nprobability. Because the autocorrelation function of such a model is the

same as that of integrated white noise, adjoint theory can therefore be used to
calculate RMS statistics due to this target maneuver model [Fitzgerald and Zarchan,
19781. The RSS of the RMS miss distance and acceleration requirements for all
sources are used as measurements of performance. This results of the short-range
intercept scenario, in which intercept occurs 15,000 ft from the illuminator, are
summarized in Table 8-7a. The largest contributor to miss distance and acceleration
requirement for the semiactive system is glint noise. Because of the target-dependent
nature of glint noise, it is not likely that the contribution to total miss distance and
acceleration requirement from this quantity could be improved dramatically by im-
proving the system components or the Kalman filter and guidance law. Random
target maneuver is second to glint noise in its contribution to miss distance and high
acceleration requirement. Thermal noise, which is dependent on ( R r ) * ( R ) ,rep-
resents the smallest contribution. However, the effect of RIN is also very small.
Total RSS miss distance and acceleration requirement are roughly 6 ft and 10 g,
respectively. The total RSS miss distance and acceleration requirement for the com-
mand guidance in the short-range case compare closely to that of the semiactive
system. In this casc, total RSS miss distance is between 3 and 6 ft, and the total
RSS acceleration requirement is between 5 and 7 g, depending on the atmospheric
noise components. The table shows that these components have the largest impact
on total RSS miss distance and acceleration requirement. Since they are determined
by the intcrcept scenario, they do not fall under the control of the missile systcm
designer. Although RIN and random target rnaneuvcr also contribute to miss dis-
tance and accclcration rcquircment, their values are rather small.
The results of thc long-range intercept arc shown in Tablc 8-7b. This interccpt
occurs 130.000 ft from thc illuminator. The overall pcrformancc of the semiactive
system at the long-range intcrccpt docs not diffcr radically from thc short-range
intercept. Thc contributions from glint noise, RIN, and random target maneuver
to performance basically follow the same pattern as in the short-range intercept case.
The target mancuvcr portion is very nearly the same because the filter and other
system components arc not much different from those found in thc short-range
intcrcept casc. Howcvcr, thcrmal noisc beconlcs a bigger contributor to both miss
distancc and accclcration rcquircnicnt in the long-range intcrccpt casc. The increase
in each is a result of thcir dcpcndencc of S T , thc target-to-illu~ninator range. If
the scckcr is of poorcr quality, thermal noisc may bc an inlportant contributor to
total miss distancc at long-rangc intcrccpt rangcs. For t11c command guided system,
thcrnial noisc is thc most significant contributor to high miss distance and largc g's
sincc from Equation (8-1 15) command guidancc thcrnlal noisc miss and accclcratjon
are dcpcndent on R$- which is still largc ncar intcrccpt. Long launch rangcs suffer
from corlsidcrablc pcrformancc dcgradatiou. If thc radar bcani to thc targct is sta-
tionary, thcn miss distancc and accclcration rcquircmcnt duc to atmospheric noise
can also bc quitc largc. As with scn~iactivcsystcms, thc missilc systcm dcsigncr
docs not havc control ovcr this componcnt. Unlike the short-rangc interccpt case,
RIN is thc lcast important contributor. I<andom targct mancuvcr contributes n1ore
TABLE 8-7(A) MISS DISTANCE AND ACCELERATION ADJOINT RESULTS: SHORT.
RANGE INTERCEPT (8) MISS DISTANCE AND ACCELERATION ALLJOINT RESULTS:
LONG-RANGE INTERCEfT Prom [Nesiines,19861 wlth permission from AACC

"om% . Comnd
Source ~ o c e l (9'8)
. nias(ft)- k c e l (g'a)

I I I
Homing Thermal
Noise

I Glint Noise

Homing Range

. Independent Noise

Command Thermal
Noise

Atmospheric Noise

Comand Range
Independent Noise

!
Random Target 2.3 1.3 2.4
Maneuver

XIS 6.1 9.8 6.0*(3.1)'* 7.0*(5.1)'*

Low Frequency Atmospheric Noise Model

" High Frequency Atmospheric Noise Hodel

b ) MISS DISTANCE AND ACCELERATMN ADJOINT RESULTS - LONG RANGE INTERCEPT

I I I
Earning Camnand
\ Source miss (ft) Accel. (g's) Miss (ft) Accel (9's)
j
Homing Thermal 0.9 2.9
Noise

Glint Noise 5.6 7.8

Homing Range 0.5 1.3

Independent Noise
Command Thermal
Noise
I
Atmospheric Noise
I
Command Range
Independent Noise

Random Target
I 0.9
/ 2.4 14.2 5.5
Maneuver

RMS 5.8 8.8 45.4*(32.8)** 22.0*(19.6\**

L

I **
Low Frequency Atmospheric Noise Model
High Frequency Atmospheric Noise Hodel
 562 Advanced Guidance S ~ s t e mDesign Chap. 8

to miss distance and high g's as a result of a slower Kalman filter whose gains have
been reduced by the large noise in the system. Overall, the performance of the
command guidance has degraded in comparison with the semiactive system results
for this long-range engagement.

8.6 ANALYTICAL SOLUTION OF OPTIMAL TRAJECTORY

SHAPING FOR COMBINED MIDCOURSE AND TERMINAL
GUIDANCE

This section presents a combined midcourse and terminal guidance law design for
missiles to achieve range enhancement with excellent intercept performance. Ana-
lytical solutions of a closed-loop, nonlinear optimal guidance law for three-dimen-
sional flight for both the midcourse and terminal phases are derived. This combined
guidance law can quickly modify the missile trajectory during midcourse guidance
when the target direction changes. Zero heading error is achieved a t handover from
the midcourse to the terminal phase. The guidance algorithm is in a feedback form,
either in inertial coordinates or in seeker coordinates. It is sufficientlv simple for
onboard ilnplementation and has been applled successfully for on-line operation. In
the past, both L Q guidance laws [Glasson and Mealy, 19831 and various nonlinear
guidance laws [Cheng and Gupta, 1986; Lin, 1983; Lin and Tsai, 1987; Menon and
Briggs, 19871 have been proposed for the midcourse phase. Glasson and Mealy
[I9831 constructed an approximately optimal midcourse guidance law in which the
kinetic energy loss is ~ninimizedb5* time scheduling the guidance navigation ratio.
Cheng and Gupta [I9861 and Menon and Briggs [I9871 used singular perturbation
theory to develop implementable closed-loop guidance laws, the former based on
minimum time. the latter on both flight time and terminal specific energy. As these
examples indicate, research 011 midcourse guidance has focused on deterministic
optimal control formulations. Details of these results that can also be applied to an
air-breathing engine are presented later in this section, while other midcourse guid-
ance results are presented in Section 8.7.

8.6.1 Optimal T r a e c t o r y Shaping Guidance

A combined missile r~.ridcourscand terminal guidance law design that maximizes

the final vclociry can lcad to range erthanccment of lnissiles as presented in Chapter
6. Thc midcoursc guidancc law normally represents a form of proportional navi-
gation with the proper trajectory-shaping charlges to ensure a n~inimizationof the
energy loss. Many guidance studies of long- and medium-rangc missiles indicate
that optimal trajectory shaping ensures an extended range i n v o l ~ i n gmore be~lcficial
cndgamc conditions. For this optimal trajectory-shaping guidance law design, the
cornbincd guidance law for the midcoursc and tcrlninal phase is developed in this
section using optimal control tcchr~iqucs.Ho~ve\.er,dircct application of the optil1la1
control theory will result in a two-point boundary valuc problem. The problem
Sec. 8.6 Analytical Soiutlon of Optimal 7Yq)ectory Shaping 563

can be further complicated with the lift, thrust and drag, and control constraints
forced by structural and angle of attack limits. This increases the computation time
so that it is not feasible to implement the resulting solution of the missile performance
on a digital computer. In view ofthis complexity in the problem setup, either indircct
methods [Lin, 1987(a)]or direct methods based on nonlinear programming are used
to solve the sensitivity and convergence problems. However, both methods require
very fast onboard microprocessor technology for real-time, on-line operation. In
this section, a simpler, more easily implementable feedback guidancc law for aero-
dynamic control is sought that would surpass the performance of direct and indirect
methods. This closed-loop, nonlinear optimal guidance law is applied to both the
midcourse and terminal guidancc phases. Its solutions arc derived to satisfy the need
for a real-titnc guidance law that can be easily implemented on line within the
computational capabilities of current microprocessor-based onboard systems. It has,
in fact, been applied successfully with on-line operation and has led to an overall
improvement in missile performance.

8.6.2 Problem Formulation

The present position and velocity of the missile are expressed as ;(to) = (xo, yo,
2,))and v(t,,) = (.kg, i o , 2") where x is the longitudinal position, y the lateral
position, I the altitude; the dot represents derivative with respect to time, and the
subscript 0 represents the present time. The flight guidance problem of the missile
is to find an acceleration command vector ii,(t) = [a,,(t), ay,(t), a,,(t)] for to 5
t 5 tf such that at if, 't(tf) and v(tf)would have reached a prespecified terminal
condition with some cost function optimized. The subscript c denotes command
and the subscript f denotes the final time. First, simple guidance gains for the explicit
guidance command equations in inertial coordinates are derived. This technique is
introduced in Cherry [1964]. Then optimal control is applied to find the analytical
optimal guidance gains. The steering equations with simple guidance gains are ex-
plicit functions of the current and the desired boundary conditions (position and
velocity). Hence, this guidance law is known as explicit guidance. Details of explicit
guidance are provided in Cherry [1964]. Here, the derivation is briefly summarized.
The equations of motion with respect to a planet-centered, inertial Cartesian co-
ordinate system are

Integrating x(t) from the present time to to general time t will give

t ) - (to) = Jto ?(T) dT

564 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

By integrating Equation (8-129) from to to tf,

where time-to-go t, = tf - to. From Equation (8-129),

T h e unknown function 2(t) can be expressed in a generalized Fourier series. How-

ever, Equations (8-130a and 8-130b) and (8-137) can determine only two of these
undetermined coefficients. In other words, there are only t w o coefficients C1 and
C2 of x(t) which satisfy Equations (8-130a and 8-130b) such that

where Pl(t) and P2(t) are linearly independent, prespecified functions of time. For
implementation simplicity,

are chosen. Substituting Equations (8-131a and 8-131b) into Equations (8-130a 2nd
8-130b) [Cherry, 19641,

can be obtained where K1 = -2 and K2 = 6. Similarly,

2 ( f ) = (K~/t,)[i(tf) - i(to)] + (Kzlt;)[z(tf) - z(to) - 2(to)t,l (8-132)

can be obtained. The function chosen for PI([) and P2(t) in Equation (8-131b) leads
to particularly simple equations. This choice of functions is not necessarily the op-
timum choice, although it is probably the simplest and leads to quite a useful steering
law. The gains K1 = - 2 and K 2 = 6 satisfy only the boundary conditions [Equations
(8-130a and 8-130b)l. In order to satisfy the optimal trajectory of atmospheric flight,
it is desirable to find the optimal time-varying K l and K2 that optimize a performance
index and satisfy the constraints imposed on the solution so that a general acceleration
vector can be expressed explicitly in a more gcneral vector form as

This guidance law is also an explicit function of the current and the desired boundary
conditions, but with optimal time-varying gains to be derived later. From Equation
(8-127) the missile acccleration command in inertial coordinates 2, is equal to
2 - 2 where ;i is from Equation (8-133). Figure 8-38 defines the nomenclature of
a three-dimensional intercept geometry. The variables 6(R) and u ( R ) are functiolls
of the slant range R (thc dotted line connecting and 6).
The variable S is the
prcdicted velocity angle error of thc prcscnt and final vectors, and u is the heading
Sec. 8.6 Analytical Solutlon of Optimal nqiectory Shaping 565

error angle. The dotted triangle defines the plane containing and R. T o reduce
the effect of an uncontrolled axial acceleration command, let the first term of the
guldance algorithm [Equation (8-133)] at the normal direction be (Kilt,) V sin 8.
The second term at the normal direction is reduced as - (K21t,) ( V sin u/cos u ) .
Since R == I, V cos u, the normal acceleration is written as
KI K2
a = - V%in 6 cos u - - sin u (8- 134)
R R
in seeker coordinates. The instantaneous curvature K of the missile trajectory is
defined as

where 9 is the flight angle about some inertial reference and dsldt = V. From Equa-
tions (8-134) and (8-135), the optimal curvature K is thus
KI . K2 .
K = - sln ti cos u - - sin u
R R

Example 8-7: Low-altitude target engagement with grazing

angle control. This example is based on a detailed presentation in Wang [1988].
The problem of target detection and tracking is always present in the case of engaging
low-altitude targets. For such a scenario occurring over the ocean, it is desired that
the grazing angle be kept at Brewster's angle near intercept to increase the signal-
to-image ratio, thus minimizing the water-reflected signal. An analytic solution of
a combined optimal control and estimation for the missile shown in Example 8-2

Figure 8-38 Intercept Geometry

566 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

can achieve a grazing angle with excellent intercept performance. T h e guidance

algorithm is in a feedback form and in inertial coordinates. A quadratic performance
index (see Example 8-2) is employed together with a Brewster's angle, the boundar,.
constraint of which explicitly defines the state to be minimized. The performance
of the guidance law is extremely dependent on the approach grazing angle. What
- -

is shown is that a significant performance improvement can be obtained with the

optimal grazing angle when a good t, estimation such as that presented in Section
8.10 is employed in the guidance algorithm. Furthermore, the algorithm described
in this section yields th; best and least complex shaping angle. 1n order to satisfy
the optimal grazing angle, it is desired to find the optimal guidance gains KI and
K2 that optimize the performance index subject to the constraint of Equation (8-
133). T h e grazing angle can be defined as IL = tan-' [ Z T + z,,lxY]. Referring to
Figure 2-10, y T and y,,, (in horizontal plane) correspond to z~ and z,,, (in vertical
plane) used in this example. The best controller to maintain the grazing angle used
a curvature method. For a given curve c, the arc length s may serve as a parameter
in parametric representations. It is given by ~ ( t =
) ~ m d t Then . 1 / is~ defined
as radius of curvature. T h e optimal guidance law is u = - a t , . - (a2/4)zT. The
first term of Equation (8-133) is the velocity error of the predicted terminal speed
relative to the current velocity and optimizes the grazing angle. The second term
considers relative position error and minimizes the time. Hence, the grazing angle
is controlled to Brewstcr's angle.

8.6.3 Analytic Optimal Guidance Law

The missile trajectory is generally defined in inertial coordinates with the acceleration
[Equation (8-133)J as the control normal to the missile velocity; however, it is more
convenient to use the guidancc algorithm in sccker coordinates [Equation (8-134)],
that is, a function of thc feedback variables 6 and a,instead ofthe guidance algorithnl
in inertial coordinates [Equation (8-133)], to derive the optimal guidance gains KI
and K? with a performance indcx

and boundary conditions S(tf) = o ( l f )= 0. Maximizing the terminal speed in the

pcrformancc index Equation (8-137) for a mancuver from launch to the intercept
point is cqui\,alcnt to minimizing thc total loss in thc kinetic energy of the entire
flight path and hence promising cxtcnded range with nlorc favorable cndgame con-
ditions, which is thc goal of this optimal trajectory shaping. Equation (8-133) is a
well-dcfincd guidance equation and is used as explicit guidancc law. The gains
K1 = - 2 and Kz = 6 satisfy only the boundary conditions [Equations (8-130a and
8-130b)l but not thc optimality condition. Since it is difficult to dircctly dcrivc
optimal gains K, and K2 in thrcc-dimensional flight as stated previously, simplified
and practical solutions are obtaincd from a rcduccd-order problem. Thc analytic
optimal guidancc gains K c and K2 are first dcrivcd for the vcrtical plane guidance
Equations (8-132a and 8-132c). A similar derivation is thcn done for thc horizontal
plane guidancc Equations (8-132a and 8-132c). Then thc gains dcrived from the
Sec. 8.6 Analytical Soiutlon 0~Optlmal7Ydectory Shaping 567

vertical and horizontal plane guidance equations are applied to a three-dimensional

flight using Equations (8-132a and 8-132c) as guidance accelerations in inertial
coordinates of X, Y, and Z directions, respectively. These equations are mutually
independent and are three components of Equation (8-133).

Vertical plane guidance. In the vertical plane, the flight path angle y is
equal to 9 and
6(R) = yf - 7 (8- 138a)
u(R) = y +0 (8-138b)
where 0 is the inertial LOS angle. The equations for R and 0 are, respectively,
dRldt = - V cos o (8- 139a)
and
d0ldt = ( V sin u)lR (8-1 39b)
The state equations which govern the states y and o and the control K are derived
from Equations (8-133), (8-138b), and (8-139a and 8-139b) as
dy1dR = - K sec u (8-140a)
and
duldR = - K sec a - (tan u)lR (8-140b)
To obtain the optimum guidance law a,([) optimal control theory needs to be applied
to find an optimal control law K(R)subject to the state Equations (8-140a and 8-
140b) and the boundary conditions u(tf) = 0, y(tf) = yf (specified and updated in
flight), and R(tf) = 0 such that the missile terminal speed is maximized. Maximizing
the missile terminal speed is equivalent to maximizing

G is first found as a simplified function of the state variables u and y, the control
variable K, and the missile characteristics. Then optimal control theory is applied
to find the optimal K such that G is maximized. The derivation of G is described
as follows. T o facilitate identification of nomenclature used in the derivation from
Equations (8-142) through (8-147), the following are defined:
CD, = zero lift drag coefficient
CL, = lift coefficient curve slope [dCLlda]
D = drag = Do + DL
D L = drag due to lift = IlCL,a2qS = qL,a2
Do = zero lift drag = C D , ~ S
 Advanced Guldance System Design Chap. 8

L = lift = CL,aqS = Laa

L, = lift curve slope [dLldu] = CL,S
m = mass
q = dynamic pressure = pV2/2
S = area
T = thrust
W = weight = mg
a = angle of attack
q = aerodynamic efficiency factor
p = atmospheric density
The equations of motion, neglecting mass change due to fuel cons~lmption,are
dVldt = ( T cos a - D)lm - g sin y (8- 143)
Vdyldt = (Tsin a + L)/m - g cos y (8-144)
T o obtain an analytic solution of optimal control K , the derivation of G is simplified
by assuming cos u -- 1 - a 2 / 2and using Equation (8-143) so that
T -
dV = - Do
-
dt
,g sin .y
in
- -
m
[I + ( I ~ L ,+ T / 2 ) a 2 / D o ] (8-145)

and assuming sin a = a using Equations (8-135) and (8-144) to obtain

a = tnV2(K + g cos yIV2)(T + La)-' (8- 146)
Equation (8-146) is then substituted into Equation (8-145) and the result divided
by Equation (8-139a) so that the range R is an independent variable. Thus,

[I + (qL, + T / 2 ) m V 4 (+~ g cos - ~ / V ~ ) ~ / [-kDL,)*]]

Substituting this equation into Equation (8-141) yields
~ ( T sec u
I
DO
G=-1,-
mV
1 T/m -pin
v
y
scc u dR

wherc
Sec. 8.6 Analytical Solution of Optimal 7?dectory Shapfng

Neglecting the effect of gravity, Equation (8-147) can be rewritten as

" T scc u dR
G, = - I -
ttl V "" L mv
where

1 = J: (I + $) sec u dR and , =
DoL,(TIL, + 1)'
m 2 V4(2q + TIL,)
(8- 150)

Optimal solution for the power-off stage of solid rocket engine.

From Equations (8-149) and (8-130), it is evident that trajectory shaping is influ-
enced by variations in aerodynamic and propulsion parameters. For the power-off
stage of a solid rocket engine, the second integral term at the right-hand side of
Equation (8-149) does not exist so that maximizing I is equivalent to maximizing
C , that is, maximizing the missile terminal speed. Hence, I becomes the new per-
formance index. The Hamiltonian to the variation problem is

= [l + K'/(~F')]sec u - A, tan ulR - (A, + h , ) ~sec u (8-151)

where A , fulfills the adjoint equation dA,ldt = - aH*/dx, where H* is the maximized
Hamiltonian and x, the state. Since the y coordinate can be ignored, there is the
integral
A, = Co (8- 152)
The optimal variable K is found to be
K = F2(h, + C")
I t is seen that K is proportional to A, + CO.From Equations (8-151) to (8-153),
A, for the unconstrained K is

An equation for K is formed by taking the derivative of Equation (8-153). Then

substituting Equation (8-154)
d~
-
d~ = [($ - FZ) sin u + +.I
R sec2 o,
(8-155)
dK
-
d~ = [(g - F.) .in + R
+ (I + sin2 u + ...)
are obtained. By neglecting higher-order terms of sin u and K' sin u of Equation
(8-155),
570 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

From Equation (8-140b),

d(R sin 5)
= -RK
dR
and substituting Equation (8-157) into Equation (8-156),
d2 2 d(R sin u)
- ( R sin a) - - - ~ ' R s i n u+ C = 0
dR2 R dR
is obtained. It is found that
C
R sinu = -
F~
+ C l e F R ( F R- 1) + C 2 e - F R ( F R + 1) (8-159)

satisfies Equation (8-158). At the boundary condition t = t f ,

Rf = 0, crf = 0 (8- 160)
Using these boundary conditions in Equation (8-159),
C = (C1 - C2)F2 (8-161)
is obtained. Then Equation (8-161) is substituted into Equation (8-159) to obtain
R sin u = C l [ e F R ( F R- 1) + 11 + C 2 [ e - F R ( F R+ 1) - I ] (8-162)
By differentiating Equation (8-162) with respect to R and using Equation (8-157)
for comparison,
K = +
- C I F 2 e F R C2F2e-FR (8- 163)
is obtained. Equation (8-140a) is integrated with K from Equation (8-163). In the
integration, Equations (8-138a and 8-138b) are used in the process and ( y f + y)l
2 ;= y and cos[(yf - y)/2] ;= 1 are assumed to obtain Sqf cos a dy = sin 6 cos 0.
Thus,
sin S cos u
F
FR
= C1(l - e ) + C2(1 - e - F R )
From Equations (8-162) and (8-164), coefficients C 1 and C 2 can be obtained as
follows:

-
( 1 - e - F R ) Rsin u

+ R2)
E-~~(F + 41
+ [I - C F R ( F R+ I ) ]
sin 6 cos o
F I/ [ e F R ( F R- 7)

l ) R sin u + [eFR(FR- 1 ) + 11
sin S cos u
F
I/ [ e F R ( F R- 2)
Sec 8.6 Analytical Solutlon of Optimal Trqjectory Shaping 5 71

Substituting C1 and Cz into Equation (8-163),

[ F 2 ( 2 - eFR - e - F R ) ]sin
~ cr f [2F2R - F(r"' - e - F R ) ]sin 6 cos a
K =
e F R ( F R - 2) - e T F R ( ~+R 2) + 4

Thus by equating Equations (8-136) and (8-165), the closed-loop feedback guidance
gains in Equations (8-133) and (8-134) are analytically determined as

In the optimal guidance law, either in inertial coordinates [Equation (8-133)) or in

target tracker coordinates [Equation (8-134)], the first term, known as velocity to
go, considers the velocity error of the predicted terminal speed relative to the current
velocity. The second term considers the position error of the predicted terminal
position relative to the current position. The first term minimizes the energy loss,
that is, trajectory shaping, and the second term minimizes the time. Hence, the
combined weighted minimum energy loss and minimum time optimal intercept
control trajectories are generated for a specified region of the predicted intercept
point. If the final flight path angIe is not specified, then hYf = 0 and hence Co =
0 and C = 0. From Equation (8-161). C, = C2 is obtained. Applying Equations
(8-162) and (8-163) yields

Optimal solution for air-breathing engine or the power-on stage

of a solid rocket engine. In the previous discussion, it was assumed that the
second terms of Equation (8-149) can be neglected. However, this assumption is
not suitable for air-breathing engines. This integral propulsion effect is retained in
the following derivatives. Rewrite Equation (8-149) as

The optimal solutions have been derived previously for no thrust effects of ( D O -
T ) 2 0, that is, with trajectory coefficients 2 0. At thrust stage, T > Do so < F
0; therefore, a new trajectory-shaping coefficient F: needs to be defined as
F: = -F = L,(T - Do)(TIL, + l ) ' l [ m z V 4 ( 2 q + TIL,)] (8- 169)
5 72 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

Equation (8-169) is substituted into Equation (8-168) to obtain

c2= "L' - $) (I sec a d~

The Hamiltonian to maximizing Equation (8-170) with respect to Equations (8,

140a and 8-140b) and (8-169) is

HI = a (1 - 2) sec a - A,,
tan a
-
R
- (A, + A Y )sec
~ a, a, = -
-
Do
mV
T

The Hamiltonian is independent of the variable y, hence

A, = Co
The optimal variable K is found to be

It can be seen that K is proportional to A, +

Co. From Equations (8-171) to (8-
173), X, for the unconstrained K is given by

-
dR
,
dh-
- - a, sec' a
F:
[(: )-+ F: sin a + C=-F
co
a1
2
2 (8- 174)

Taking the derivative of Equation (8-173) and substituting Equation (8-174) yield

"dR= [($ + F : ) s i n U + " R" 1 secZ a,

"
dR
= [(: + F;) sin + R 1' (1 + sin2
a + a +
(8- 175)

By neglecting high-order terms of sin a and K2sin a of Equation (8-175).

Substituting Equation (8-157) into Equation (8-176) yields

d' 2 d(R sin a)
-
dR2
(R sin a) - -
R dR
+ FgRsina + C=0 (8-177)

It is found that
C
R sin a = --
F$
+ C I(cos(F2R) + FzR sin(FrR)] + Cz\sin(F2R)- F ~ cos(F2R)I
R
Sec. 8.6 Analytical Solution of Optimal ndectory Shaping 573

satisfies Equation (8-177). Using the boundary conditions [Equation (8-160)] in

Equation (8-178) gives
C I = CIF: (8- 179)
Then Equation (8-179) is substituted into Equation (8-178) to obtain
R s i n u = Cl[cos(FzR) + F2Rsin(F2R) - 11 + C2[sin(F2R)- (F2R)cos(F2R)]
(8- 180)
By differentiating Equation (8-180) with respect to R and using Equation (8-157)
for comparison,

is obtained. Equation (8-140a) is integrated with respect to R and using K from

Equation (8-181). In the integration, Equations (8-138a and 8-138b) are used in
the process and (yf + y)/2 .= y and cos[(yf - $121 = 1 are assumed to obtain
J:f cos u dy = sin 6 cos a. Thus,
sin 6 cos u
= - C1F2 sin(F2R) + C2Fz[cos(F2R) - 11
F2

From Equations (8-180) and (8-182), coefficients C1 and C2 are obtained as follows:
F~[cos(FzR)- 1]R sin a - [sin(F*R) - F2R cos(F2R)] sin 6 cos u/F2
C1 =
F2[2 - 2 cos(F2R) - FzR sin(F2R)]

Cz =
F2 sin(F2R)R sin u +
[cos(F2R) + F2R sin(F2R) - 11 sin 6 cos ulF2
F2[2 - 2 cos(F2R) - F2R sin(F2R)I
Substituting C1 and C2 into Equation (8-181),

K =
F:[cos(FzR) - 1]R sin u +
F2[sin(FzR) - FzR] sin 6 cos a
(8- 183)
2 - 2 cos(F2R) - F2R sin(F2R)
Thus, by equating Equations (8-136) and (8-183), the closed-loop feedback guid-
ance gains in Equations (8-133) and (8-134) are analytically determined as

(8- 184)
If the final flight path angle is not specified, then A,, = 0 and hence Co = 0 in
Equation (8-172) and C = 0 in Equation (8-174). From Equation (8-179), C1 =
0. Therefore, applying Equations (8-180) and (8-181) yields
K2 . F$R' sin(F2R)
K = - - sin a, K2 = . K1 = 0 (8-185)
R sin(F2R) - F2R cos(F2R)'
5 74 Advanced Guidance @stern Design Chap. 8

General solutions of optimal trqjectory-shaping guidance law,

The effects of gravity are neglected previously in deriving the guidance laws. How-
ever, the gravity effects are retained in the following derivation. The trajectory-
shaping coefficient is redefined as
L,(Do- T+mg sin y) A2
F: = (TIL, +I ) ~ + ~ ,A = g cos YIV' (8-186)
m2 V4(2q+ TIL,)
and Equation (8-186) is substituted into Equations (8-147) and (8-148), respec-
tively, to obtain

The Hamiltonian to maximizing Equation (8-187) with respect to Equations (8-

140a and 8-140b) and (8-186) is

H2=a2
( I+- + e) s c
K~

2R F$
- A.
tan u
- R
- (A, + A,)K sec u (8-188)

The costate A, is expressed as

Integrating dA,ldR and substituting Equation (8-140a) yield

L, g sin y
F: K
(TIL, + I)' + A2/2

where a. is a constant. Substituting Equation (8-182) into Equation (8-188), optimal

K is found to be

K = (F:la2)~, + a. (8- 190)

From Equations (8-188), (8-189), and (8-190), A, for the unconstrained K is

-
dk,
dR
= (13, sec2 u/F:) [ ~ ' / 2- F: + f(y)] sin a +
""3
R
(8-191)

An equation for K is formed by taking the derivative of Equation (8-190). Substi-

tuting Equation (8-191),
Sec 8.6 Analytical Solution of Optimal 7Ydectory Shaping 5 75

is obtained. By neglecting high-order terms of sin u and K2sin u of Equation (8-

192),
dK -
- - - [ F ; - f(y)I sin u + K - ~ I J

dR R
If the shaping coefficient is approximated by
Fz -
P FI La(Du - Ti (TIL. + 1)' (8- 194)
- f ( y ) = m'V4(Zn,+ TIL.)
which is the same as that derived in Equation (8-168). then Equation (8-193) be-
comes

In the case of no-thrust effect (that is, F; 2 0 ) in Equations (8-186) and (8-194),
all is an arbitrary constant when the final dive angle yf is specified. The solution is
exactly the same as in Equations (8-165) and (8-166). When the final dive angle yf
is not specified, a. is a specific value as defined in Equation (8-189) where X,, = 0.
The solution is of a different form from Equations (8-165) and (8-166). For F4 <
dK
0 as in Equation (8-194), Equation (8-195) is expressed as R - - F:R sin u - K
dR
+ all = 0 where F: = -F:. When the final dive angle yf is specified, a. is an
arbitrary constant. The solution is exactly the same as that given by Equations (8-
183) and (8-184). When the final dive angle y f is not specified, a. is a specific value
as defined in Equation (8-189) where A,, = 0. The solution is of a different form
from Equations (8-183) and (8-184). In other words, the gravity does not affect
the closed-loop guidance and gains when the final dive angle y f is specified; it affects
the closed-loop guidance and gains when the final dive angle yf is not specified.
This is due to the fact that once the final dive angle yf is decided, the missile trajectory
is dictated. The traiectorv will be less sensitive to the gravitational
> u
effects. However.
if the final dive angle y f is not specified, then the trajectory can be optimized by
taking into account gravitational effects. Hence, there are more trajectories to satisy
the boundary conditions, and the gravitational effects are one of the factors that
determine the final optimal trajectory.

Horizontal plane guidance. As in the case of the vertical plane guidance

equation, the analytic optimal guidance gains K1 and K2 for the horizontal plane
guidance equation are also derived. All the equations and optimal gain formulations
in vertical flight are applied to the horizontal flight except that all gravity terms do
576 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

not exist. In addition, a becomes P which is the sideslip angle, y becomes JI which
is the heading angle, and 0 is now the inertial LOS angle in the horizontal plane.
Since the gravity term does not exist in the second term of G in Equation (8-147),
G I in Equation (8-149) and the optional solutions are now more correct. For + f
specified, K1 and K 2 are given by Equations (8-166) for the power-off stage of a
solid rocket engine, or they are given in Equations (8-184) for an air-breathing
engine.
For + f not specified, K2 is the same as that found in Equation (8-167) for the
power-off stage of a solid rocket engine, or it is that found in Equation (8-185) for
an air-breathing engine. For both applications, K1 = 0. That is, in this case of
unspecified + f the final incident angle I J f is chosen as the current incident angle (that
is, I J f = +) so that the lateral velocity error is not considered in the horizontal
guidance equations. Hence, the main concern is to minimize the lateral position
error, that is, the final time. The preceding optimal guidance gains of the two planes
are obtained by solving the guidance equations while satisfying the preceding con-
straints.

Mathematically probing the analytical solution of the optimal tra-

jectory-shaping guidance. The combined midcourse and terminal guidance
law design for missiles presented earlier achieves range enhancement with excellent
intercept performance. Also derived was the closed-form solution of a closed-loop
nonlinear optimum guidance law for three-dimensional flight for both the midcourse
and terminal phases by neglecting certain nonlinear terms. Beginning with the op-
timal guidance formulation derived by Lin and Tsai 119871 for the particular case
of solid rockets in Equation (8-ljj), [Rao, 19891 mathematically massages this in
order to arrive at an analytical solution that retains terms neglected earlier. It should
be mentioned that the solution presented earlier was obtained by taking the full
solution to be presented now, and then making simplifications based on real-time
considerations, a discussion of which is presented in Section 8.6.5. This section
shows how it is possible to take a result derived on the basis ofengineering experience
and expertise, that is, Equation (8-ljj), and to probe it mathematically in order to
arrive at particular solutions. The differential equation to be solved in analytical
form is Equation (8-155)
dK
-
dR
= [($ - F') sin u + +

R
1' ,I + sin2 u)

R *
dR
= [($ - F') R sin u + (K + C) I
+ [(: - P) R sin u + (K + C)
I sin2 u
Sec. 8.6 Analytical Solutlon of Optimal Trqjectory Shaping 577

Letting h = R sin u and using the fact that duldR = - K sec u = tan u l R yield
dh du
- = R cos u - + sin u = - K R . Equation (8-196) becomes
dR dR

where E is the average value o i u , and f , $1, and ,q" are defined for the following
cases:
Case 1 . Optimal solution for a solid rocket engine based on Equation (8-
133)

Case 2. Optimal solution for an air-breathing engine based on Equation (8-

173)
-
f2 - - (Ff + F 2l sin. 2 -u ) -- -Ff(1 + sin" E ) ,
8 1 = c(l + sin's), g2 = 1 + sin2 E
Case 3. General solutions of optimal trajectory-shaping guidance law based
on Equation (8-192):
f2 = - [F: + F: sin2 E + f(y)], g l = -ao(l + sin' E ) , g2 = 1 + sin2 E
In the treatment of Rao [1989],only Case 1 is considered. Introducing a change of
independent variable, F I R = T,gives

Even if the right-hand side of Equation (8-198) is neglected, a greater degree of

mathematical rigor is retained by guarding some of the terms not considered earlier
in terms of their average value, thus including their effect on the behavior of the
parameter A. The equation to be solved then becomes

Introducing a change of dependent variable defined by P = ( g l l f 2 ) - A, Equation

(8-199) becomes

Equation (8-200) can be solved analytically in terms of the modified Bessel function
of order p. T o begin with, the dependent variable P is transformed according to
578 Advanced Guidance S ~ s t e mDesign Chap. 8

P = U T"+ 112 and n = ( 1 + g 2 ) / 2 , the result of which is to make U the neIv

dependent variable, giving

Letting p. = (2n + 1)/2, one obtains a standard Bessel equation of the form

The solution to Equation (8-202) is of the form U = A I , ( T ) + B K , ( T ) where

I , and K , are modified Bessel functions of order p, and A and B are integration
constants, Referring back to the transformation defining P in terms of U and T,
one has

where p. = 1 + (8712). In terms of the original variables R sin u and R, Equatior,

(8-203) becomes
R sin a = ( g ~ l f 2 -) ( f R ) " [ A I , ( f R ) + BK,(fR)]
where p. = 1 + (S2/2),and A and B can be solved for using the conditions supplied
earlier. Using the solution to Equation (8-196) given by Equation (8-204), the gains
K1 and Kz presented earlier for each of the three cases will be slightly modified.
While it is possible that such modified gains may show m o r e of the nonlinear effect
in trajectory-shaping guidance, no convincing arguments or simulation results have
ever been published to vcrify whcther this is in fact the case. As often happens in
cngineering, however, extending the mathematical rigor may have a certain elegance
of its own, but this does not always contribute significantly t o the solution of the
problem at hand.

8.6.4 Real-Time lmplementation and Performance

Real-time implcmcntation is difficult in view of the two-point boundary value prob-

Icm as wcll as the aerodynamic nonlinearitics associated with the lift, thrust, and
drag, and the control constraints forced by structural and a limits. Howcvcr, analytic
solutions that havc bccn derived arc able to satisfy all optimality conditions under
a wide range of statc and control constraints. Thc desircd guidance acceleration
commands arc cxprcsscd explicitly in inertial coordinates by Equation (8-133) in
terms of the missilc position and velocity at thc prcscnt time and the
intercept point (I'll'). Thcrc arc two mcthods of implcmcnting this guidancc law
in real time. First, if the inertial refcrcnce unit (IIIU) is available on board, thcn it
provides the missile its position and velocity. The target-tracking radar uplink pro-
vides the target position and velocity. The computing unit computes t , and PIP by
using the present missile acceleration, the missile-to-target relative velocity, and the
Sec. 8.6 Analytical Solution of Optlmal 7kdectory Shaping 579

missile-to-target range. Equation (8-133) is then uscd to compute the guidance

acceleratiorl commands in inertial coordinates. The IRU quaternions arc then used
to transform the111 into guidance commands in body coordinates and input to the
autopilot. The second method of in~plcmentationis applicable when there is no IRU
on board. Then Equation (8-134) is uscd to compute the guidance acceleration
command in seeker coordinates.
The control gains K , and K? are analytically derived and are nonlinear functions
of the trajectory-shaping coefficient F and the range R. As noted previously, F
depends on the missile aerodynamics and propulsion characteristics. The variables
K , and k'. are systematically updated in flight trajectory to reduce errors in the
missile state; errors in the terminal state due to measurement error, target noise,
and target maneuver; and autopilot and control-loop dynamic response time lags.
As pointed out previously, the heading error at handover is the main error affecting
the miss distance. By radar specification, the noise distribution of the uplink data
is known, enabling covariance analysis to be used to design the optimal guidance
filter to attenuate noise effects (including measurement error of missile and target
statcs). Appropriate midcourse guidance filter design can therefore reduce the head-
ing error at handover. Therefore, the analytical solution solves the boundary value
problenls associated with missiles intercepting targets in three-dimensional en-
gagements. The resulting guidance law is computed in a feedback manner. The
performance index and the optimal guidance law used, either in inertial coordinates
or in seeker coordinates, contain equivalently a weighted combination of flight time
and energy loss, and the intercept is regarded as a terminal constraint so that the
optimal control will cause the missile to maneuver efficiently in terms of minimum
energy loss and minimum time. A special case included is minimum time, as in the
case of optimal guidance Equation (8-167), for the power-off stage of a solid rocket
engine. For an air-breathing engine or the power-on stage of a solid rocket engine,
the optimal guidance is given by Equation (8-185).
Owing to the analytic form of the resulting feedback control law, the guidance
algorithm is suitable for implementation in an airborne digital computer to dem-
onstrate the feasibility of on-line optimal control operation. This explicit guidance
algorithm was derived with different gains for solid rocket engine and air-breathing
engine applications. Figure 8-39 shows an optimal-shaping guidance law structure
for various applications. In general, the guidance law given by Equation (8-134)
with gains from Equations (8-166) is more suitable at the power-off stage for me-
dium-to-long-range flight. At the power-off stage for short-to-medium-range
flight, it is suitable to use this same guidance law with gains from Equation (8-
167). For power-on stage, T - Do must be positive. Equation (8-134) with gains
from Equations (8-184) is more suitable for medium-to-long-range flight, while
Equation (8-134) with gains from Equation (8-185) is more suitable for short-to-
medium-range flight. The vertical launch and short range to go will be discussed
later.

Implementation and simulation of three-dimensional flight. In

a three-dimensional engagement, the missile is guided during the midcourse portion
 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

Target Position,
Velocity Data

EkI
Tracking Filter

and Short
Range to Go

I*Time-to-GoEstimator
Integral Tables
*I
Time-to-Go Estimator

K, = -2, K2 = 6

Guidance Law I
+
AIP Command Figure 8-39 Optimal Shaping Guidance
Law Structure

of the flight by the optimal guidance law in inertial coordinates. For practicality,
implementing this guidance law for three-dimensional flight in inertial coordinates
is accomplished as follows.

Midcourse phase. In midcourse, three components of accelerations o f the

explicit guidance law (8-133) are first computed. There are t w o approaches. In the
first approach, gains K1 and K2 are calculated from Equations (8-166) for the power-
off stage, or those from Equations (8-184) for the power-on stage. The gains arc
used to compute Equations (8-132a and 8-132) for the three-dimensional accel-
erations. In the second approach, K1 = 0 and K 2 is calculated from Equation (8-
167) for the power-off stage. or from Equation (8-185) for the power-on stage, to
compute the minimum time guidance acceleration command. Hence, from Equation
(8-128a), a, is equal to a-.C where a has the X, Y, and Z accelcration components;
a, is then transformed into guidance acceleration commands in body coordinates.
For S T T missiles, Y- and Z-direction acceleration commands in body coordinates
arc used as commands to the autopilot. Hence, the optimal guidance gains selected
emphasize trajectory shaping and minimize cncgy loss and time for the first ap-
proach. However, the second approach only minimizes the time.
Sec. 8.6 Analytical Solution of Optimal Trajectory Shaping 581

Switching phase and terminal phase. When target maneuver is de-

tected as the missile is approaching homing a t the end of the midcourse phase,
trajectory shaping becomcs less iniportant while minimizing the position error for
good accuracy in guidance becomes more important. Hence, the guidance gains are
switched to either the gains given by Equation (8-167) for the power-off stage or
by Equation (8-185) for the power-on stage. Thus, the guidance equation in the
switching and terminal phase now minimizes the lateral position error, that is, time.
Thcrcforc the I , of the missile trajectory in homing is minimized for target inter-
ception. This modification of optimal guidance gains near handover can achieve
superior crossing-shot performance by turning the missile onto a favorable collision
course early in the engagement and reducing heading error to zero at handover. It
can quickly modify the missile trajectory during midcourse guidance when the target
direction changes.
Thus the same guidance law can be used for both the midcourse and terminal
phases. This modified optimal guidance law is easy to implement and works es-
pecially well for all-weather long-range missiles because it is especially simple and
useful and has been substantiated by real-life applications. Many realistic simulations
using the proposed method have shown that very high performance is achieved in
midcourse and tcrminal guidance. For SAM missile applications the launch angle
and the PIP range and altitude are used as scanning parameters to compute a family
of three-dimensional intercept optimal trajectories that maximize the final speed at
intercept. The PIP dive angle yf determines the highest altitude required by the
missile. For real-time application, the launch angle and the PIP dive angle are a table
look-up of the PIP range and altitude in a proportional relationship.

Comparison between optimal trqjectory and nonoptimal trqjec-

tory. With the optimal gains, it is possible to obtain smoother guidance accel-
eration command time histories than with the nonoptimal gains K1 = - 2 and
K 2 = 6. For SAM applications, the normal acceleration command history using
the nonoptimal gains results in a higher-altitude trajectory than that using the op-
timal gains. The dynamic range and magnitude of the cl and P time response using
the optimal gains are much smaller than those using the nonoptimal gians. The a
and p time response using the optimal gains are also smoother. Hence, the optimal
gains are suitable for air-breathing missile applications where the dynamic range of
the a and (3 needs to be constrained.
Since the optimal trajectory has smaller a and P than the nonoptimal trajectory,
it has much smaller heading error at handover. Therefore, it is easier for the missile
autopilot to control and follow the optimal trajectory with minimum control sur-
face activity. This results in improved miss distance with shorter flight time. T h e
optimal trajectory presents a significant improvement in the final speed over the
nonoptimal trajectory since the drag owing to the a is less than that occurring in
the nonoptimal trajectory. In some SAM applications, the final speed in vertical
flight has about a 15 percent improvement for a 50-km flight range. When imple-
mented in a three-dimensional engagement, the optimal trajectory has significant
582 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

improvement (40 percent) in the final speed over the nonoptimal trajectory. Al-
though a SAM model is used in the guidance law design, analysis, and simulation,
the guidance law can also be applied to SSM, AAM, and ASM.

Vertical launch of tactical missiles. Figure 8-40 shows an example

of a vertical launch. The realistic problem has to do with computing optimal guid-
ance law for vertical-launch tactical missiles intercepting at short range to go with
large initial heading error a. The problem formulated in Equation (8-134) with t,Q
estimator is not suitable for this critical case. Due to tactical reasons, vertical launch
may be preferred in a missile system. Vertical launch of a tactical missile was per-
formed at least as early as 1967 nonsson and Malmberg, 19821. It is interesting to
study this shaping guidance law. T w o of the optimal criteria that may be formulated
regarding this shaping guidance law Equation (8-134) are available for vertical
launch of missile intercepting at short range and low-altitude target. The first is to
minimize the control deflection historv, together
., with the control deflection limi-
cation, while the second is to minimize the time to transfer the missile position and
velocity from initial status to a final status. The guidance Equations (8-132a, 8-
132b. and 8-132cl are available for aerodynamic control or thrust vector control
for this application. The guidance computations, needed for solving explicitly the
more general boundary value problem, involve a determination of the required (,
which is much more different from what been described so far. The development
of a steering equation to guide a missile to a desired set of terminal conditions is
based on the solution of the following variational problem. It is required to find
the acceleration a(/) ~vhich\vill minimize the functional J;'A"T) d~ subject to Equa-
tions (8-128b). The optimal solution of this problem is A ( / ) = bl + 621. which,
after substituting into Equations (8-130a and 8-130b) yields the same optimal so-
lution Equation (8-133) 1 ~ 1 t hoptimal gains K , = - 2 and K 2 = h. AS discussed
previously, this optimal guidance law is suitable for short !,(or short range-to-go)
applicatiot~ssince atmospheric effects are neglected at deriving this optimal guidance
law. In a vertical-launch missile intercepting a t short-range and low-altitude target
guidance law application,
.. the acceleration command a, is a function not only of
two-point boundary values but also of the required ,, estinlator. In general, the
problem under consideration requires the missile to perform a high a maneuvcr.
This, togcthcr with the control dcflcction limitation, implies highly nonlinear systc111
dynamics. For practical considerations, the r, is detcrmincd under the control dc-

7 Target

Figure 8-40 Vcrtical Launch

 Sec. 8.7 Other Advanced Midcourse Guidance Schemes 583

flection limitation for avoiding control saturation. The shorter the i,, is determined,
the more mnticuver is required. Therefore, the niinimutn intercept zone is decided
from the accepted niini~nunii,, to intercept. Detailed structure of thc optin~al-shaping
guidance law with vertical-launch capability has been shown previously in Figure
8-39.

8.6.5 D i s c u s s i o n s

Cornplctcly closed-form solutions of optimal trajectory-shaping guidance have been

presented that maximize the final speed at intercept. The proposcd gi~id;i~ice law
has been applied successfully to three-dimensional engagements. Since the guidance
law formulation for the midcourse and terminal phase is the same, and can easily
be implemented, it is very suitable for onboard application. In general, it is more
appropriate for the missile to be guided during the midcourse portion of the flight
by the optimal guidance law [Equation (8-133)] in inertial coordinates. In terminal
phase, the same guidance law, can be used. The major contribution of this guidance
law is that it is very simple and useful, especially when applied in inertial coordinates.
Application of this optimal trajectory-shaping guidance law results in maximization
of the filial speed at intercept, improvement in miss distance, smoother acceleration
command time history, zero heading error at handover, shorter flight time, smaller
and smoother angle of attack and sideslip angle.

8.7 OTHER ADVANCED MIDCOURSE GUIDANCE SCHEMES

As shown in Section 8.6, the optimal guidance problem is a two-point boundary

value problem whose solution is generally obtained in an open-loop form. However,
it is usually required that the optimal solution be of closed-loop form in the case
of onboard real-time guidance. Several closed-loop guidance schemes have already
been explored, as shown in Section 8.6, as a result of recent interest in onboard
real-time generation of midcourse guidance commands for medium-range AAM.
In addition to those presented in the previous section, Kelley [I9621 and Breakwell
et al. [I9631 have studied the problem of guidance in the neighborhood of an optimal
nominal trajectory, and have developed procedures for synthesizing linear feedback
for optimal guidance. Higher-order feedback approximations were introduced by
Kelley [1964(a)], while Weston et al. [I9831 and Visser et al. [I985 &- 19873 made
use of still another approach adopted by Kelley and Well [I9831 in which intercept
onboard calculations are performed that make use of Euler solutions for a point-
mass vehicle model but incorporate elements of singular-perturbation theory. Mid-
course guidance law design for an AAM that employs the singular-perturbation
- ~

theory is presented in Section 8.7.1. In Section 8.7.2, a method of performing on-

board real-time calculations for an optimal guidance approximation is described in
which elements of extremal fields and neighboring extremal theory are used together
with precalculated Euler solutions to establish the closed-loop guidance algorithm.
584 Advanced Guidance Sustem Design Chap. 8

This last approach is applied to midcourse guidance of an AAM equipped with

boost-sustain propulsion and modeled as a point mass in the vertical plane.

8.7.1 Singular Perturbation for Advanced Midcourse

Guidance

In this section an advanced midcourse guidance law based on minimum flight tilne
criteria is developed. The optimality conditions of the control problem result in a
two-point boundary value problem which is too complex for onboard real-time
implementation with near-term microcomputer technology. Nevertheless, singular-
perturbation technique approxin~ationsare applied to solve this complicated prob-
lem in this section. The resulting guidance law is near optimal and sufficiently simple
for implementation. In reality, singular-perturbation techniques are used to simplify
the optimal control problem so that the resulting near-optimal control problem does
not require the solution of any t\vo-point boundary value problem. The midcourse
guidance law based on this methodogy is proposed by Cheng and Gupta [1986].

Problem formulation. Assuming small angle of attack and sideslip angle

at midcourse guidance, the state equation in inertial coordinates can simply be for-
mulated as:
X. = V cos 0 cos 4, x(to) = so (8-205a)
= I; cos 0 sin +, I ) = )1(~ (8-205b)
1; = 1.' sin 0, 11(10) = h(, (8-205c)
4 = L sin $/(ril l,'cos 0), $(to) = 40 (8-205d)
0 = (L cos 4 - r r y cos 0)1(rnl/), 8(10) = 0,) (8-205e)

where the state variables are the position coordinates x, y, and it; pitch angle 8; yaw
angle \Ir; and the specific energy E which is represented as E = h +
V212g. The
variable 6 denotes the oricntation angle and V denotes the total missile speed. The
lift vector in the pitch and yaw directions normal to the missile-body axis. defincd
by ma~nitudcL and oricntation 6.is the input control to be optimized. The thrust
and mass rrr arc predefined fi~nctionsof time. Moreover. the thrust cornpollent
normal to the body axis is assunled small and hence is ncglcctcd. For simplicity,
the performar~ceindex is sclccted here as minimizing the tinlc of flight, that is3
J = I;! dr. The optinla1 control problcm is to solvc for the control input that min-
imizes), subjcct to the constraints of Equations (8-305) and the desired tcrnlillal
condition. The Hamiltonian is

Here, z7 = (x, y , 11, 4, 0. E ) and A T = ( A , , A,. A,,, A+. A,,, A&). ~ h costatc
c
Sec. 8.7 Other Aduanced Midcourse Guidance Schemes 585

variable A satisfies A = - (dHIaZ)T and A(tf) = Ar where the optimality conditions

arc dHIdL = 0 and dHldd, = 0.

Near-optimal solution using singular-perturbation technique.

Equations (8-205) can be expressed as the system using dimensional analysis:
R d(.rlR)
--= 2 7'-D
cos 0 cos JI
V lit

R n ( y l R ) = cos 0 sin JI
- mV d+
-- - L sin 4
I ' lit L,,,, dl L,,,,, cos 0
h,,,,., d(hlh,,,,,) mV d0 L m,y cos 0
- = sin 0 -. - -- cos 4+
v dt L,,, dt L",.,, Lm,,
where h,,,, is the operational altitude limit, L,, the lift limit, and R a characteristic
range. The typical value of h,,,/ V is less than those of Rlv and vlg and the value
of h,,.,,l V is larger than that of rnVIL,,,,. The missile dynamics in Equations (8-
205) can be categorized into three groups. The first group is the slow dynamics of
x, y, and E. The second group is the medium or altitude dynamics based on h, and
the third group is the fast dynamics based on pitch angle 0 and yaw angle +.

Slow dynamic approach. Since h, +, and 0 are classified as faster variables,

their corresponding equations may be considered to be in equilibrium with the slow
dynamic approach. The equilibrium conditions of h, Jr, and 0 imply that 4, = 0,
= 0 and L, = mg from Equations (8-205c) to (8-20%). Here, the subscripts denotes
that the variables are in the slow dynamic approach. The Hamiltonian of Equation
(8-206) becomes
H, = 1 + A,, V, cos Jr, + A,,V, sin +, + A,,[V,(T - D,)lmg] (8-207)
Note that since Hs is independent of X and Y, A,, and A,, are constants. Thus, the
+
optimal value of is constant and given by tan +,
= A,,/A,,. Integrating Equations
(8-205a) and (8-203b), the following is obtained:
J19 = tan-'[(yf - yo)l(xf - XO)] (8-208)
Equation (8-208) suggests that the yaw angle in the horizontal plane is determined
by joining the current missile position to the predicted final missile position. T h e
adjoint variables A,, and A,, are constants and can be defined as
1 1 .
A,,= --cos+,lV,(tf), A,*= - - ~ i n + ~ I V ~ ( t ~ ) (8-209)
2 2
The adjoint variable AE, can be determined by the following given two factors:
(1) Equation (8-207); and (2) the conditions for free final time and unconstrained
final specific energy, that is, AE,(tf) = 0 and H,(tf) = 0. T o solvc AE, without
reference to the backward differential equation, the values of T and it1 are approx-
586 Advanced Guidance Sgstem Design Chap. 8

i~natedby their average valuesT and i i , respectively. This removes the dependency
on time of H, and thus
H, = 1 + A,, V, cos +, + A,, V, sin +, + AE,[v,(T - D,)l(-iiis)l = 0 (8-210)
Substituting Equation (8-209) into Equation (8-210), the following is obtained:

The optimal altitude is given by dH,lalt = 0 which becomes

after eliminating the Lagrange variables through Equations (8-209) and (8-211).
Equation (8-212) determines the optimal altitude h implicitly through the term
aD,/ah.

Medium dynamic approach. The definition of medium dynamics is

based on the altitude dynamics which are faster than the dynamics of x, y. and E,
but slower than the pitch angle and yaw angle dynamics. T o solve for altitude
dynamics, A,., A,.,, and AE, in Equations (8-209) and (8-211), the approach used
+
in slow dynamics is applied. The values of and 0 are assumed in their equilibrium
conditions since the dynamic responses of $ and 0 are much faster than those of the
rest of the system states. The corresponding Hamiltonian can be rewritten as:
H,,, = 1 + A,, V,,, cos O,,, cos &f+ A,., l),,, cos O,,, sin 4,
+ hi,., l',, sin O,,, + A, t1,,,[(T- D,,,)lrtq]
where the subscript m denotes variables in the medium dynamic characteristics. The
optimality condition dH,,ld0 = O is reduced to
tan O,,, = A,,,/(A,, cos +, + A,, sin $,) (8-211'
T and 111 are again approximated by their average values to give the addition,
condition H,,,(I) = 0 to avoid solving the backward differential cquation for Ah,,.
This condttion, with the Lagrange variables elinlinated by Equations (8-209), (8-
21 l ) , and (8-213). gives the following result:

The value of sec 0," is given by Equation (8-214) where O,,, is positive for h, < hl
and negative for h, < h,,. At this point, given the current pitch angle 0 and yaw
angle J, and the desired pitch anglc 0 , and yaw angle +,, the orientations of the
current velocity vector V, and the desired velocity vector Vdare specified respectively
by the following.
V, = [cos 0 cos $, cos 0 sin +, sin 01, (8-21 5 )
Vd = [COSern cos +,,,, cos 0, sin J,,, sin Om]
Sec. 8.7 Other Aduanced Midcourse Guidance Schemes 585

variable A satisfies A = - (dHIaZ)T and A(tf) = Ar where the optimality conditions

arc dHIdL = 0 and dHldd, = 0.

Near-optimal solution using singular-perturbation technique.

Equations (8-205) can be expressed as the system using dimensional analysis:
R d(.rlR)
--= 2 7'-D
cos 0 cos JI
V lit

R n ( y l R ) = cos 0 sin JI
- mV d+
-- - L sin 4
I ' lit L,,,, dl L,,,,, cos 0
h,,,,., d(hlh,,,,,) mV d0 L m,y cos 0
- = sin 0 -. - -- cos 4+
v dt L,,, dt L",.,, Lm,,
where h,,,, is the operational altitude limit, L,, the lift limit, and R a characteristic
range. The typical value of h,,,/ V is less than those of Rlv and vlg and the value
of h,,.,,l V is larger than that of rnVIL,,,,. The missile dynamics in Equations (8-
205) can be categorized into three groups. The first group is the slow dynamics of
x, y, and E. The second group is the medium or altitude dynamics based on h, and
the third group is the fast dynamics based on pitch angle 0 and yaw angle +.

Slow dynamic approach. Since h, +, and 0 are classified as faster variables,

their corresponding equations may be considered to be in equilibrium with the slow
dynamic approach. The equilibrium conditions of h, Jr, and 0 imply that 4, = 0,
= 0 and L, = mg from Equations (8-205c) to (8-20%). Here, the subscripts denotes
that the variables are in the slow dynamic approach. The Hamiltonian of Equation
(8-206) becomes
H, = 1 + A,, V, cos Jr, + A,,V, sin +, + A,,[V,(T - D,)lmg] (8-207)
Note that since Hs is independent of X and Y, A,, and A,, are constants. Thus, the
+
optimal value of is constant and given by tan +,
= A,,/A,,. Integrating Equations
(8-205a) and (8-203b), the following is obtained:
J19 = tan-'[(yf - yo)l(xf - XO)] (8-208)
Equation (8-208) suggests that the yaw angle in the horizontal plane is determined
by joining the current missile position to the predicted final missile position. T h e
adjoint variables A,, and A,, are constants and can be defined as
1 1 .
A,,= --cos+,lV,(tf), A,*= - - ~ i n + ~ I V ~ ( t ~ ) (8-209)
2 2
The adjoint variable AE, can be determined by the following given two factors:
(1) Equation (8-207); and (2) the conditions for free final time and unconstrained
final specific energy, that is, AE,(tf) = 0 and H,(tf) = 0. T o solvc AE, without
reference to the backward differential equation, the values of T and it1 are approx-
586 Advanced Guidance Sgstem Design Chap. 8

i~natedby their average valuesT and i i , respectively. This removes the dependency
on time of H, and thus
H, = 1 + A,, V, cos +, + A,, V, sin +, + AE,[v,(T - D,)l(-iiis)l = 0 (8-210)
Substituting Equation (8-209) into Equation (8-210), the following is obtained:

The optimal altitude is given by dH,lalt = 0 which becomes

after eliminating the Lagrange variables through Equations (8-209) and (8-211).
Equation (8-212) determines the optimal altitude h implicitly through the term
aD,/ah.

Medium dynamic approach. The definition of medium dynamics is

based on the altitude dynamics which are faster than the dynamics of x, y. and E,
but slower than the pitch angle and yaw angle dynamics. T o solve for altitude
dynamics, A,., A,.,, and AE, in Equations (8-209) and (8-211), the approach used
+
in slow dynamics is applied. The values of and 0 are assumed in their equilibrium
conditions since the dynamic responses of $ and 0 are much faster than those of the
rest of the system states. The corresponding Hamiltonian can be rewritten as:
H,,, = 1 + A,, V,,, cos O,,, cos &f+ A,., l),,, cos O,,, sin 4,
+ hi,., l',, sin O,,, + A, t1,,,[(T- D,,,)lrtq]
where the subscript m denotes variables in the medium dynamic characteristics. The
optimality condition dH,,ld0 = O is reduced to
tan O,,, = A,,,/(A,, cos +, + A,, sin $,) (8-211'
T and 111 are again approximated by their average values to give the addition,
condition H,,,(I) = 0 to avoid solving the backward differential cquation for Ah,,.
This condttion, with the Lagrange variables elinlinated by Equations (8-209), (8-
21 l ) , and (8-213). gives the following result:

The value of sec 0," is given by Equation (8-214) where O,,, is positive for h, < hl
and negative for h, < h,,. At this point, given the current pitch angle 0 and yaw
angle J, and the desired pitch anglc 0 , and yaw angle +,, the orientations of the
current velocity vector V, and the desired velocity vector Vdare specified respectively
by the following.
V, = [cos 0 cos $, cos 0 sin +, sin 01, (8-21 5 )
Vd = [COSern cos +,,,, cos 0, sin J,,, sin Om]
Sec. 8.7 Other Advanced Midcourse Guidance Schemes 587

Also, the lift orientation 4 can be obtained by changing the angle to turn A + as
A + = cos-'(V< V,,) (8-316)

Fast dynamic approach. The fast dynamic characteristics arc defined by

the dynamics of the pitch angle 0 and yaw angle +. The Hamiltonian, with the
Langrangc multipliers derived from the slow and medium dynamics, can be written
as:
H., = 1 + +,, + A,, V,,, cos 0 , sin +., + A, ,,,, V,,, sin 0,
A,. V,,, cos 0, cos
+ hi:. V,,,(T - D,)I(rt;y) + A*L sin + / ( t t r V,,, cos 0,)
+ he(L cos - trl'q cos 0,)/(m V,,,)
In order to determine Ae and A*. in terms of L and +, the optimality conditions
E)H,/E)L and dH,ld+ = 0 can be used. Again, approximations of T and m by their
average values give an adjunct condition, that is, H,,(t) = 0. The Lagrange variables
and drag terms, shown as D = q s ( C ~ ,+, CD, ( a ( + cD,2a2) and L =
qSCL,,cw, can bc eliminated from this condition to dcfine the optimal life L. Fur-
thermore, by ass~imingthe angles ($, - +,) and (0, - O,,,) to be small and by
ignoring negligible terms, simplification is feasible and results in the following

Midcourse guidance algorithm. Based on the results derived earlier, a

midcourse guidance algorithm can be formulated involving the following corn-
putations. In the slow dynamic approach, yaw angle +,
in Equation (8-208) and
hence optimal altitude h in Equation (8-212) are computed. In the medium dynamic
approach, pitch angle 0,, in Equation (8-214), lift orientation 4 and angle to turn
A + in Equations (8-215) and (8-216) are computed. In the fast dynamic approach,
lift magnitude L in Equation (8-217) is computed.

8.7.2 Midcourse Guidance for Boost-Sustain

Propulsion

Midcourse guidance is examined in this section for an AAM featuring boost-sustain

propulsion.

Computational scheme. Results for open-loop best-range guidance of

a medium-range AAM are presented. The computational approach follows that
discussed in Katzir et al. [1988]. In this optimal vertical-plane flight problem, the
nonmaneuvering target is in a head-on engagement at the same altitude as the flight
vehicle. T h e problem is illustrated in Figure 8-41, where [Dl represents the target
with the launcher range at launch; [R] represents the missile range; and [S] represents
590 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

In principle, this condition is used to solve for an extrcrnal control n*. For the drag-
polar [Lin, 19801, the result is

O n e should check that the extremal control satisfies the constraints 'and that the
control actually mi~zimire.cthe Hamiltonian function. The latter condition is satisfied
if hE is negative. Some common boundary conditions on the costates ( t r a n s ~ e r s a l i t ~
conditions) which vary according to the problem being examined, are h,(tf) = - 1,
A,(tf) = 0, E ( t f ) = E f , or h ~ ( t f )= 0. The E - hE boundary condition is com-
plicated because it invd~vesan inequality. In practice, one solves with the specified
Galue of E(tf) and then checks the corresponding costate h ~ ( t f ) A . negative value
of this quantity corresponds to an extremal solution. If this is not the case, one must
refigure with AE(tf) = 0 (natural) boundary condition. This will arise if the specified
bound Ef is less than the "natural" value, that is, E(tf) with At(tf) = 0. A prelim-
inary study of time-range-energy optimal trajectories shows that there is a fair
amount of lofting in these ~ f t e an
r initial high-g pull-up the trajcctories are
almost ballistic. Extensions to three-dimensional flight " have vroduced similar be-
havior. Future efforts will be directed at obtaining reduced-order models that are
suitablc for closcd-loop synthesis and still retain the significant characteristics of the
point-mass model.

Near-optimal trajectories. The approach to onboard real-time calcu-

lations for midcoursc near-optimal guidance prcsentcd here follows the work of
Katzir ct al. [1989]. I t is based on cxtrcmal fields and neighboring cxtrcmals theory
ideas uscd in conjunction with precalculated Eulcr solutions and fccdback gains to
producc a closed-loop guidance scheme. The optimal rcfercnce trajccrorics ("nom-
inal") and the closed-loop gains indexing arc done in tcrms of either current or
stretched time. It is assumed that, in certain time intervals, the predicted intercept
point is first computed and then uscd as the new terminal condition for the missile.
Thc fccdback gains are computed using methods from the previous sections.
The optimal trajcctory, having been generated prcviously, is now considcrcd
as a nominal rcfcrcncc trajcctory hcrc. Ncar-optimal trajcctorics, which arise as a
result of the follo\ving dcsign of a pcrturbation guidancc law, arc based on this
nominal rcfcrcncc trajcctory. Assuming the cxistcncc of a nominal reference tra-
jectory togcthcr with small pcrturbations in thc initial statcs Gx(r,,) and final con-
ditions 6x(tf) for a fixcd final tirnc, [Kcllcy, 19621 showcd that the perturbed and
the adjoint systcms constitute a linear, tirnc-varying systcm. Moreover, the optimal
problcm of minimizing a performance index J is rcduccd to that of minimizing the
second-ordcr approximation to J. Thc ensuing problem is a lincar, time-varying
two-point boundary valuc problem that has a quadratic performance index, thc
solution to which is wcll dcvclopcd. The optimal control law represented by the
solution to this problem is of a contir~uouslincar fccdback typc which can be written,
as shown in Lin [1983(a)], as u(r) = urC,(r) + Su(t) whcrc 11 is thc near-optimal
 Advanced Guidance Sgstem Design Chap. 8

Figure 8-41 Intercept Geometry (From

[Katzir e l a l . , 19881 with pennission j o r n
RA NCE AACC)

the target with the launcher range at intercept. This scenario can be divided into
two problems:

1. Maximum range a t launch ID]: Assuming no target maneuvers, r11c11

D ( t f ) = R ( t f ) + V r t f , where R is the maximum range achievable by the
missilc in time t f . Maximizing the distance D leads to D l ( / / ) = R 1 ( t f )+ 1 . ~
= 0 or R ' (t,) = - V r .
2. Maximum separation at intercept IS]: Assuming the launcher does not ma-
neuver, then S ( t f ) = R ( t f ) - V L t f .

Maximizing the d~stanceS requires that t f bc sclcctcd so that R 1 ( t J )= I/;. In this

case. thc best t, occurs where the slope of the R - curve is positive. I t should
be clear from this elementary analysis that the key issue is the range-time curve for
the missile. Thc problcm of maximizing the missile's range in a givcn time is also
considered. The fundamental objectives are to construct the maximum range-time
curve for the missilc and to understand the nature of the trajectories that yicld
maximum range.
T o formulate an cnergy state model, consider thc general, nonlinear system
.+ = f(x, u, I) in a timc intcrval \to, tr] with the initial conditions x(ttr) = xo, a
target sct x ( t f )E Of, and a control constraint sct I ( ( ! ) E a. For the missilc example
here, x = IX, / I , y, Ej and I ( = 11,and point-mass cquations for thc vertical-plane
motions arc simplified from Equation (8-203) as x = V cos y, = I/ sin y, j =
g(n - cos y ) / V , and = (7' - D ) V / W . The functional dcpcndence of T and L).
the aerodynamic and propulsive modeling functions, is dcnotcd by T = T ( t , { I )
and D = D(h, E, 1 1 ) . The propulsion is of boost-sustain type, thus the explicit
dcpcndencc on tirnc. The control variable in the modcl is the load factor [ n ] and is
lirnitcd by two constraints:
Structural limit: 1 rl(t)l 5 n,,,,,
Aerodynamic limit: 1 n(r)l c~,.,(M)qSl W
Sec. 8.7 Other Advanced Mldcourse Guidance Schemes 589

At this point, the optirnal control problem can be formulated. Stated simply, it is
to minimize a performance index with a control vector function u(f) E 0 and with
the produced trajectory .u(r) that satisfies the initial conditions xo and the target set
x(tf) E Of. The problem essentially consists of finding the load factor n(*) such that
the final range X(tf) is maximized. The following boundary conditions are applied
to this examplc:
Initial Point Final Point

X(0) = 0 y(tf) = free

h(0) = /lo (specified) h(tr) = It,, (specified)
E(0) = E,) (specified) E(tf) 2 Ef (specified inequality)

Note that since the final altitude is specified, in this example the inequality on the
final energy implies a lower bound on final velocity. The basic problem (PI) is to
maximize the final range with the common boundary conditions (given previously),
and y(0) = 0 (specified) and tf = (specified). This leads to a two-parameter family
of curves, parameterized by Ef and I / . A one-parameter family of problems, denoted
P2, is obtained by leaving i f unspecified. Finally, a modified problem [P3] is in-
vestigated wherein the initial path angle is open, that is, y(0) is open and tf is
specificd. A variation of this problem is to maximize the final energy for a specified
range, keeping all the other requirements the same.
Since the nominal trajectory is assumed to satisfy the Euler-Lagrange equa-
tions, Pontryagin's minimum principle can be invoked to obtain the optimal so-
lution. Following Katzir et al. [1988], the variational Hamiltonian for this example
is defined as:
H(A, X , tc, t) = X,V(h, E) cos y + h~,V(h,E) sin y + [X,gI(V(h, E))l[n-cos yl

The costate variables are governed by the adjoint equations, namely:

Ah = - [AIcos y + Ahsiny - ( ~ , ~ i V ' ) ( -n cosy) + AE(T- D)lW]dVldh

i E= - [A, cos y + X h sin y - V2)(n - COSY) + XE(T - D)/ W]d VldE

+ (A, Vl q(aDlaE)
The minimum principle requires that an optimal control, which in this case is the
optimal load factor n*, must minimize the variational Hamiltonian. Mathematically,
this is expressed as
min H(h, x, u, t ) = min [X,glV)t~ - (AEV/LV)D(h, E, n)]
"0 l!l/S?lmdx
590 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

In principle, this condition is used to solve for an extrcrnal control n*. For the drag-
polar [Lin, 19801, the result is

O n e should check that the extremal control satisfies the constraints 'and that the
control actually mi~zimire.cthe Hamiltonian function. The latter condition is satisfied
if hE is negative. Some common boundary conditions on the costates ( t r a n s ~ e r s a l i t ~
conditions) which vary according to the problem being examined, are h,(tf) = - 1,
A,(tf) = 0, E ( t f ) = E f , or h ~ ( t f )= 0. The E - hE boundary condition is com-
plicated because it invd~vesan inequality. In practice, one solves with the specified
Galue of E(tf) and then checks the corresponding costate h ~ ( t f ) A . negative value
of this quantity corresponds to an extremal solution. If this is not the case, one must
refigure with AE(tf) = 0 (natural) boundary condition. This will arise if the specified
bound Ef is less than the "natural" value, that is, E(tf) with At(tf) = 0. A prelim-
inary study of time-range-energy optimal trajectories shows that there is a fair
amount of lofting in these ~ f t e an
r initial high-g pull-up the trajcctories are
almost ballistic. Extensions to three-dimensional flight " have vroduced similar be-
havior. Future efforts will be directed at obtaining reduced-order models that are
suitablc for closcd-loop synthesis and still retain the significant characteristics of the
point-mass model.

Near-optimal trajectories. The approach to onboard real-time calcu-

lations for midcoursc near-optimal guidance prcsentcd here follows the work of
Katzir ct al. [1989]. I t is based on cxtrcmal fields and neighboring cxtrcmals theory
ideas uscd in conjunction with precalculated Eulcr solutions and fccdback gains to
producc a closed-loop guidance scheme. The optimal rcfercnce trajccrorics ("nom-
inal") and the closed-loop gains indexing arc done in tcrms of either current or
stretched time. It is assumed that, in certain time intervals, the predicted intercept
point is first computed and then uscd as the new terminal condition for the missile.
Thc fccdback gains are computed using methods from the previous sections.
The optimal trajcctory, having been generated prcviously, is now considcrcd
as a nominal rcfcrcncc trajcctory hcrc. Ncar-optimal trajcctorics, which arise as a
result of the follo\ving dcsign of a pcrturbation guidancc law, arc based on this
nominal rcfcrcncc trajcctory. Assuming the cxistcncc of a nominal reference tra-
jectory togcthcr with small pcrturbations in thc initial statcs Gx(r,,) and final con-
ditions 6x(tf) for a fixcd final tirnc, [Kcllcy, 19621 showcd that the perturbed and
the adjoint systcms constitute a linear, tirnc-varying systcm. Moreover, the optimal
problcm of minimizing a performance index J is rcduccd to that of minimizing the
second-ordcr approximation to J. Thc ensuing problem is a lincar, time-varying
two-point boundary valuc problem that has a quadratic performance index, thc
solution to which is wcll dcvclopcd. The optimal control law represented by the
solution to this problem is of a contir~uouslincar fccdback typc which can be written,
as shown in Lin [1983(a)], as u(r) = urC,(r) + Su(t) whcrc 11 is thc near-optimal
 control vcctor function, ir,<ris the reference control vector function, and 6u is the
optimal control vcctor function for the perturbed system defined by 6u(t) =
u,(r)6x(t) + ~ , ~ ( t ) 6 x ( tIn
~ )the
. preceding equation, 14, and u,f are the time-de-
pendent feedback gains. With respect to the midcourse missile guidance example
just discussed, the resulting optimal law can be described by the feedback guidance
law ~ ( t = +
) t~,,,(t) Sn(t) where &ti([) is defined by
8rr(t) = - N,(t)GX(t) + :V,,(t)8/1(t)+ Ny(t)6y(t) (8-218)
+ N1;(1)8E(r) + S,,f(t)S/~(t,-)+ Nl,(t)8E(tf)
If the optimal guidance problem consists of specifying the terminal range and al-
titude, it is more expedient to consider the equivalent optimal problem that seeks
to determine a control function n(*) that maximizes the final energy E(tr) for a
specified final range. For this case, the feedback part of the guidance law is the same
as Equation (8-218) except that, in the last term on the right-hand side, N~/(t)6E(t/)
is replaced by Nxf(t)Sx(tf).
It has been observed, using perturbation schemes like these, that the gains are
very large near the final time. This may cause instability to occur as the final time
is approached. In fact, such sensitivitv associated with neighboring-optimal guidance
schemes close to the final time was pointed out in Section 8.6, and has been doc-
umented in the literature (see for example, [Lin, 1980, 1982(a)]).In reality, following
Section 8.6, it is assumed that a terminal guidance law such as PNG or a more
advanced guidance scheme such as those presented in Sections 8.1 to 8.5 would be
employed during the endgame. I t should be noted that the guidance law developed
in this section only applies to problems with fixed final time. Some work has also
been performed in the area of introducing perturbations on the terminal time, re-
sulting in a method in which a time-stretched nominal model is used. Such a method
at this time appears to hold promise. Comparisons have been made using digital
simulation runs between trajectories generated using the guidance scheme developed
in this section with those generated from optimal-control solutions. Unfortunately,
a substantial numerical effort is required for synthesis of the former's feedback law.
Additional research effort in this area would therefore be required to make the
feedback guidance law suitable for practice applications.

8.8 GUIDANCE FILTER DESIGN TRADE-OFF

In this section, the guidance filter design trade-off is studied. One of the dominant
parameters affecting the missile system performance, that is, miss distance, is the
heading error at handover from the midcourse guidance phase to the homing guid-
ance phase. The heading error characteristics at the end of midcourse guidance phase
is affected by some error models. This can be designed together with the midcourse
and terminal guidance filter. Elements which affect the heading error at handover
include missile speed V, target range from ground-tracking radar R , time to go (t,)
a t handover, autopilot time constant 7, = l l w , , and guidance filter lag time 7,.
592 Aduanced Guidance System h f g n Chap. 8

8.8.1 Optimal Guidance Filter Design Analysis

The pursuer acceleration state is augmented to the state estimate equation [Equation
(7-42)] to yield

(8-219)
Equation (8-219) in discrete domain is
?(k + 1) = @(k)?(k) + \Y(k)u,(k) + N ( k ) z ( k ) (8-220)
with T being the equal time interval ( t k + , - tk) for the discrete-time integration
and z ( k ) being defined in Equation (7-2). The optimal guidance command u, in
Equation (8-13) in discrete form is
u<(k)= g l ( k ) f r ( k ) + gr(k)$dk) + g3(k)A-rY(k)+ g4(k)Am,(k)
= E(k)i(k) (8-221)
sl(k) = AlT:, <q,(k) = AlTk,

where T k = tr - k T is the time to go from tk to intercept. Applying Equation (8-

221) to Equation (8-220) yields

The covariance matrix is defined as Pk = ~ ( ? ( k ) ? ( k ) ~which

] satisfies the propa-
gation equation in Equation (3-29)
-
P = I +N Qk = E [ z ( k ) ~ ( k =
) ~y?(k)
] + Rk (8-223)
Pk at handover can be gcncratcd by Equation (8-223) by recursion. At handover
k = H, the variation of acceleration is
u:, = EP"ET (8-224)
Moreover, following Equation (8-134), the acceleration can be expressed approx-
imately as
&(k) - ( A l f l l R ) sin Sy, A defined in Equation (8-4) (8-225)
Sec. 8.8 Guidance Filter Design Trade-off 593

where 6y is the heading error and V is the norninal missile speed generated from
the closest fit to the trajectory. Taking the variation of Equation (8-225) yields
mi,., = R a,,'/(/\ b")
Substituting Equation (8-224) into Equation (8-226),
mi,., = R EPHETI(AC")
From Equation (8-223), the covariance PH at handovcr is computed recursively.
As the data interval T is taken to be a constant, the standard deviation of heading
error a t handovcr is a function of 1,. autopilot time constant T,.,, and filter lag. Thus,
when 7.4 and ?' are assumed fixed, the filter design is off with the desired lR at
handover.

8.8.2 Missile Midcourse Guidance System Analysis

A simplified seven-state covariance analysis program has been developed [Yueh,

1983(b)]that is very useful for investigating handover conditions due to initial error,
sensor error, and targeting noise. The following presentations are based on this
analysis program and the general filter formulation discussed in Section 8.8.1. It
pcrforms lincar error propagation analysis about nominal midcourse guidance tra-
jectories and calculates thc heading error standard deviation. The program also cal-
culates target tracking components of the guidance error and the IRU initialization
errors including misalignment and drift. The chief benefit of such a program is that
it eliminates the need for repetitive simulation of the midcourse phase when per-
forming Monte Carlo-based simulation studies. Rather, these can begin near the
handover to terminal phase. thus producing results faster and less expensively. This
simple error analysis program has been demonstrated to achieve comparable ac-
curacy to the much used full-size covariance program with reduced computation
and storage. In the simplified covariance approach used here, it is possible by opening
the guidance feedback loop to propagate the initial IRU error. Given the prescribed
nominal Mach number and velocity angle history, the covariance analysis technique
proves to be quite capable of generating missile state uncertainties near terminal
handover. These in turn provide correlated initial condition statistics which may
then be used to set up the terminal flight simulation. This combination of a co-
variance approach for the long midcourse phase and a Monte Carlo technique for
the much shorter terminal homing phase is termed a hybrid analysis.
The approach is to generalize the error covariance analysis from missile launch
to terminal handover. When determining a nonlinear time-varying systems terminal
handover error sensitivity to initial conditions and tracking noise, only the perturbed
states around the nominal trajectory are analyzed. I t may be required to segment
the approximate trajectory using different guidance gains to ensure close fits in
missile position, velocity angles, and Mach numbers over the entire midcourse
phase. This ensures the validity of the small angle linearization approximation used
for the perturbed states along each segment. Following the methodology presented
in Chapters 2 and 3 (see Figure 2-3), it is then desired to determine the statistical
 594 Advanced Gutdance System Design Chap. 8

properties, mean and second-moment of the system state vector x ( t ) . The highly
nonlinear nature of the generic missile midcourse guidance equations, involving
complicated coordinate transformations from the tnissile frame or wind axis frame
to the inertial frame or vice versa, make the problem nontrivial. Fortunately, the
missile trajectory in the Cartesian coordinate-frame is usually very smooth-since
excessive maneuvering during the early stage of flight is always undesirable.
Linearization is achieved with the aid of a simple explicit guidance scheme
using adjustable gains to approximate the missile position and velocity states for
certain portions of the flight. In general, different tuneable gains are required to fit
the boost-phase and glide or sustained-phase trajectory sections. Depending on the
intercept geometry, certain diving trajectory portions also need to be segmented in
order to achieve the best parabolic curve fir. From this high-level curve-fitting ap-
proach, it is possible to construct a simplified linear error covariance analysis pro-
gram using explicit guidance techniques for error propagation through the various
sections of the nominal missile flight trajectory. Actually, as few as seven perturbed
state elements in a Cartesian coordinate frame such as x = [6X, 6Z, 6y, a,, 6Y,
64, a,jTare required to achieve meaningful results where 6 X is the perturbed missile
down-range position component, 6Z is the perturbed missile altitude position com-
ponent, 6y is the perturbed missile velocity angle component in the X-Z plane, a,
is the perturbed missile altitude acceleration component, 6Y is the missile
off-range position component, 6 4 is the perturbed missile velocity angle component
in the X-Y plane, and a,, is the perturbed missile off-range acceleration component.
Other simplifications, in addition to the small angle linearization approximation for
the perturbed states along each segment of the flight, include the assumption of a
fixed targct configuration, and the accruing of the errors associated with thc targct
state to the n~issilestatc unccrtainries. Consequently, the need to estimate the tar-
get state by filtering the illu~ninatortracking errors is renloved. By holding the
target parameters fixed, both the range and angular tracking errors will contribute
to the missile state covariancc through the proper transfornlation. Further assump-
tions include symmetry between missile and targct statc for the semiactive homing
missile (see Figure 2-10), a first-order autopilot, and no angle of attack involved.
As a result, there is no acceleration limiter for the midcourse phase. The dynamic
modeling in discrete domain is of the form shown in Equation ( 5 ) of Table 2-1
where the transition matrix Q kis given by

I i
10 - T V sin y cos 6 f I tan ylcos c$ 0 - TI' cos y sin 4 f~ tan 6
0 1 Ti' C05 y fl 0 0 iJ
0 0 1 TA~!(I' cos y) 0 0 0
00 0 I -f 0 0 0
0 0 - TV sin y sin 6 0 I TV cos y cos 4 fI
1 0 0
0
7.4f tan y tan 4
I ' cos y
0 1 7* f l ( I,, COS y COS 6) 1
See. 8.8 Guidance Fllter Dgign 'ItadeOff

y = nominal velocity angle

component in vertical plane
+ = nominal velocity angle
component in horizontal plane
and u(k) (the perturbed guidance command vector at time tk) is given in cxplicit
form (see Section 8.6) as:

where k; = kl + k2. Here, k, and k 2 denote commonly used explicit guidance

gains. The sensitivity matrix 9 can be written as:
+

I
- h tan ylcos 6 - h tan
h 0
6x f l i ( V cos
~ ~ Y) 0 T 2 -f
qI = - f 0 h =- 1
Su 0 h 2
I tan y tan +/(TA V cos y) f , / ( V
0
~ cos
~ y cos +)
f 1
Substituting Equation (8-228) into Equation (5) of Table 2-1 yields
x(k + 1) = G(k)x(k) + w(k) with G = @ +9E (8-231)
Thus, the error covariance matrix equation can be readily written as

where the second term on the right-hand side comes from the ground-tracking error
on the target. The missile state is affected by each of these uncertainties due to the
symmetry generated by simultaneously tracking the missile and target with the
battle-group radar tracking system. The target tracking data measurement noise
matrix Rk = diag(u$T, m i z , ugL) is usually given in diagonal form neglecting the
correlations in the range and angle measurement channels. U R is~ the standard de-
viation for the target range tracking noise, while U A Z and UEL are the RMS values
for the azimuthal and elevation angle measurement noise level, respectively. The
matrix K characterizes the contribution of the target tracking errors to the perturbed
596 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

missile state through the explicit guidance command. K can thus be represented as

With 9 given by Equation (8-230) as the 7 x 2 coefficient matrix relating the

guidance command vector u(k) to the missile state vector x. Symmetry in the explicit
guidance between the missile and target state allows ( x r ) E i to be expressed in a
similar manner to Equation (8-229):

H is the transformation matrix between the target state X T given in Cartesian co-
ordinates and the range and angular data which are in spherical coordinates. The
corresponding 7 x 3 matrix is given by
-
C O S ~ T C O S ~ T-R T c o s ~ ~- Rs T~s i ~ n p ~T c~o s a ~
sin P T 0 R T cos P T
0 0 0
H = 0 0 0
c o s p ~ s i n a ~R T ~ ~ ~ p T c o s -aRrT s i n p T s i n a T
0 0 0
- 0 0 0

RT defined in Figs. 2-10 and 6-23c

a~ = azimuthal target LOS angle

PT = elevation target LOS angle

For missile handover from midcourse to terminal, heading error (Sy and 64) is one
of the dominant parameters that significantly characterizes each individual flight.
Its effect on miss distance is a function of target range, missile speed, handover
time, filter lag, and autopilot response. Variations on the guidance command can
be used to compute the heading error standard deviation from launch to terminal
handoff.
6AY, = (k;,/Tk)(- V cos y cos @ 64 + V sin y sin 4 6y), (8-234)
&A,, = (k;,/Tk)(- V cos y Sy)
Thus, thc standard deviation of the heading error is related to the guidance command
uncertainty through

N= [ T k
Tk/(ki, I/ cos y)
tan y tan + l ( k i , V cos y)
0
Tkl(k4, V cos y cos 4) I (8-235)
Sec. 8.8 Guldance Fllter DesIgn Trade-off 597

so that thc heading error variances and cross-plane correlations can be readily derived
as

Error analysis. Propagation of the initial error dispersions through the

entire course of flight can be achieved through the use of the recursive error co-
variance matrix equation given in Equation (8-732). For instance, the platform
angular misalignment error due to IRU errors at launch can be computed from this
simple seven-state covariance analysis without violating any assumed constraints.
Figurc 8-42a shows a frequently used way of describing the IRU errors for a flat
nonrotating earth. In this figure, Vx, Vy, Vz are accelerometer biases; 4,. +,, +,
are misalignment angles; E,, c,, E, are gyro drift rates; AX, A Y, AZ are position
errors; A V x , A Vy, A Vz are velocity errors; and Ax(t), Ay(t), Ar(t) are nominal
acceleration profiles. The quantities g+, and -g+,, which are the result of IRU
misalignment angles, represent incorrect gravity compensation. The simplified
block diagram of the IRU errors for nonrotating flat earth in Figure 8-42a contains
nine integrators, or nine states, although the accelerometer bias V, gyro drift E, and
gravity compensation terms can actually be ignorcd since their effect on the terminal
handover heading error disperson is negligible. Conversely, the effect of the mis-
alignment angles +, +,, +,on the handover heading error digression for the nominal
trajectories being considered is very pronounced. To be consistent with the simple
two-control axis approach, the IRU down-range velocity and position error should
also be neglected. This is reasonable since their omission does not significantly affect
the magnitude of the acceleration command issued by the guidance computer. With
this in mind, a diagram of thls simplified IRU error propagation scheme is shown
in Figure 8-42b. Further examination shows that the terms in parentheses in the
figure can also be dropped since the nominal axial acceleration Ax is an order of
magnitude larger than the lateral components. By identifying +, as 6y and JI, as
- 6+, a similar recursive IRU error covariance matrix equation may be constructed
as:

Comparing Equation (8-237) with Equation (8-232), it can be seen that the guidance
loop is actually opened in the IRU error propagation case since such errors are
nonexisting so far as the guidance and control system is concerned. As shown in
Yueh [1983(b)], it would be a simple matter to include the accelerometer bias un-
certainty for the off-range and altitude control axes into the corresponding elements
of the initial error covariance matrix. The gyro drift components for the two lateral
control axes can also be included by replacing the (3, 3) and (6, 6) elements of the
transition matrix @ k with (1 + ,A) and (1 + ,A), respectively.
 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

Figure 8-42 (a) IRU Error Diagram (b) Simplified IRU Error Diagratt~(c) Normalized
Standard Deviation of Heading Error (deg) a t Terminal Handover Due to Target Track~ng
Noise (d) Standard Deviation of Heading Error at Terminal Handover Due to 1 deg IRU
Misalignment (From [l'ueh, 1983(b)] ulirh permissionfrom SCS)

Results. Thc algorithms resulting from this curve-fitting techniquc are

tested with thc hclp of the gcneral explicit guidance equations as described in Section
8.6. Threc cascs arc studicd in which nominal missilc trajcctory from launch to
terminal handovcr is approximated. Thcsc thrcc cascs evaluate thc quality o f thc
curve f i t obtained when thc trajcctory is scgmentcd into onc, two, and thrcc sections,
respectively. In the first casc, one set of gains is uscd to fit the entire trajcctory, and
the results are amazingly good in terms of missilc position components. I t is mainly
near the transition from boost to glidc phase that any crrors arc found, and thcsc
range up to 6.2 pcrccnt of the maximum position discrepancy. Howcvcr. for thc
rest o f the glide phasc thc error is always less than 1 pcrccnt. T h e fittcd vclocity
angle history curves also prove to be very good approximations. T h c biggcst crrors
occur near midflight at about 3 deg for both azimuthal and clcvation angle com-
 --

Time To Go Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Time To Go Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Figure 8-42 (Continued)

 600 Advanced Guidance S ~ s t e mDesign Chap. 8

ponents. Due to the large launch angle chosen, the error in the elevation \relocitv
angle can be as much as 8 deg shortly after takeoff, but the transient is quickl;?
diminished near the power-off period. For the nominal Mach number history curvh,
even though the fit totally misses the peak at the end of boost phase, the largest
error is still only about 10.8 percent. The parabolic curve-fitting scheme simply
rounds off the sharp kink without further segmenting the trajectory.
For the second case, a division is made between the power-on and power-off
points of the trajectory and the guidance gains are adjusted until a best fit and a
smooth velocity transition are obtained for both sections. Except for shortly after
the boost phase, the approximations of all the position and velocity components
yield values correct to within 1 percent. For the transition period, a 2 percent max-
imum error in position fit is achieved, while the transients for Mach number may
overshoot by around 5 percent. For this reason, a further segmentation of the tran-
sition period is done for the third case, and this proves to be very effective in reducing
errors in the curve fit over the entire trajectory of 2 percent o r less. The gain pa-
rameters thus chosen are used to propagate covariance errors through the
corresponding segments of the flight trajectory. In Figure 8-42c, the heading error
standard deviations (in deg) are compared for all three cases near terminal handover
as functions of time to go. The results are normalized according to us, = (uEL/
@(Table) and = [ u A Z / ( Vcos y)]u(Table) where the range tracking errors
are assumed to be negligibly small. As shown in Yueh [1983(b)], the results for the
second and third cases are very close, showing that this technique converges as more
segments are used. For the initial IRU platform misalignment angular error dis-
persion, Equation (8-237) is used for error propagation alone without incorporating
the target tracking noise source. The total covariance results should be simply the
matrix summation of Sc and P h from Equations (8-232) and (8-237), respectively.
Figure 8-42d presents the heading error standard deviation results which are ob-
tained from Equation (8-236), by normalizing the two tilts to one.degree for each
plane. Again, there is close agreement between all three cases. This implies that the
effective propagation of initial condition errors is somewhat insensitive to discrep-
ancies arising from the nominal trajectory approximation.

8.9 PULSED ROCKET CONTROL

In the discussions prescntcd in Book I of the scries, it is acknowledged that air-

breathing engincs are ideal from a propulsion standpoint since thcy have the ability
to continually vary thrust. This ability, however, comcs a t thc expensc of increased
complexity over that of the simplcr rocket motor. Thc ideal missile propulsion
system would therefore be able to combine the advantages of less complexity with
a rocket motor with those of continually varying thrust capabilities associated with
an air-brcathing engine. This would allow significant range cnhanccmcnt whilc at
the same timc eliminating residual fuel for air-fed burning occurring past the com-
bustion chamber during altcration of flight conditions. Bccausc thcy are in fact
Sec. 8.9 Pulsed Rocket Control 601

sin~plcr,rockets have been modified in an attempt to incorporate or at least a p

proximate the capabilities of the ideal air-breathing engines. This can be seen in the
pulsed rocket motor. It is appropriate here to consider first the primary disadvantage
of regular rockct tnotors in regard to missile engagement with maneuverable air
targets. Basically, tactical missile rockets coast toward the target, and after the first
several seconds they have burned up nearly all of their propellant, When the early
warning radar alerts the pilot of a missile launch, the pilot will employ a maneuver
which causcs the missile to turn suddenly, thereby bleeding itself of irreplaceable
energy.
A pulsed rockct motor. on the other hand, not only employs double or triple
burning, but also consumes propellant in a highly efficient manner. This gives the
pulsed rockct motor its primary advantage over the conventional simpler rocket
motor because it alleviates the fuel-depletion problem. This also gives a missile using
a pulsed rocket motor the ability to significantly increase its performance in order
to maximize the terminal velocity and achieve intercept at extended range. In lofted
trajectories using the pulsed rocket, a second burn takes place at higher altitude and
lower speed. Consequently, the drag xvhich relates to fiiellenergy depletion and
back prcssure which relates to thrust are both lowered. Many early missiles were
equipped with motors resembling the fixed timc delay pulsed motor. In fact, a pulsed
motor with a fixed time delay has been applied in many recent missiles. Unfor-
tunately, the delay is chosen for an arbitrary amount of time. In spice of this, an
approximate time delay of the sustainer burn allows an improvement in the final
velocity to be achieved. In the case of the pulsed rocket motor, the sustainer burn
is delayed relative to the booster burn.
In this section, optimal guidance laws determine the moment of the second
motor firing and weigh the performance advantages against the added weight of
propellant for the second pulse. Control expeditiously utilizes the pulse as the tactical
scenario dictates. This versatility is a consequence of incorporating packed elec-
tronics and multiplexed data buses into the missile. In order to create an energy
boost in the endgame, a possible three-pulse motor aided by thrust vectoring, aux-
iliary thrusters, or powerful aerodynamic flight controls can make a quick final
trajectory correction of the missile to close on a maneuvering target. An alteration
of the laser proximity fuse could initiate a course command. Therefore, the three-
pulse motor substantially reduces the miss distance and may allow direct hit of the
target to heighten the hit-to-kill objective of missiles.
A simplified model of the two-pulse motor used in the development of optimal
control logic is put forth in this section. Both pulses have constant thrust values
but the burn time durations for the two pulses are different. Additionally, the rate
a t which propellant is consumed is defined as a function of motor thrust resulting
in a linear decrease in the overall missile mass which a pulse is burning. Then thrust
profile in the mathematical formulation of pulsed motor can be characterized by the
following five parameters. The first two are associated with the booster burn and
are the thrust level and burn time duration, respectively. The other three parameters
are associated with the sustainer burn and are the thrust level T, burn time duration
602 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

tsD, and the time t, at which the sustainer burn starts, respectively. The burn time
duration is constant. The sustainer burn therefore includes t w o parameters. How-
ever, not all of the five parameters just mentioned are free parameters as can be seen
when physically imposed constraints are added to the model. In the case of air-
launched missiles there is a requirement that the missile separate from the launcher
aircraft as quickly and safely as possible at launch time. his implies that the thrust
level and burn-time duration of a booster are assumed to have prespecified values
that do in fact ensure launch safety and satisfy this requirement. Additionally, be-
cause the total impulse from the rocket motor is a fixed parameter, this implies that
the sustainer-thrust level and burn-time duration must also be fixed parameters. As
a consequence, only the time at which the sustainer burn starts t , is left as a free
parameter. The pulsed rocket problem is therefore reduced to the problem of de-
termining an optimal value for t, that maximizes the terminal velocity [Glasson,
1984; Glasson and Mealy, 19831. This section presents optimal pulsed rocket control
with the aim of selecting an optimal t,. Consider the dynamic system described by
the following nonlinear differential equation

and a performance index of form

Adjoint the dynamic system of Equation (8-238) to Equation (8-239) with mul-
tiplier A and then define a Hamiltonian H = G + Arf to obtain J = +(x)R=o +
InR
( H - A'*)
dR
dR. The variation in J due to variations in the control variables
u and t , for the intercept problem from current range R to intercept point R = 0
can be derived as

The optimal control solution is determined by the following optimality conditions

aHlarr = 0 (8-241)

T o simplify the optimal control problem, the optimization problem described in

Equations (8-238) and (8-239) is transformed into two separated but coupled sub-
problems, respectively. One is the problen~with Equation (8-241) for control vari-
able u and the othcr is the problem for t , with Equation (8-242). An optimal guidance
solution, when I, is known, is given in Section 8.6. The solution of the I, control
Sec 8.9 Pulsed Rocket Control 603

logic for maximizing velocity a t intercept is the combined optimal solution of Equa-
tion (8-242) and the intercept guidance problem described in Section 8.6. Under
the assumption that the other control variables arc scheduled optimally, the optimal
ignition time 1, can be judged at which

is evaluated. If a delay in pulse ignition (St, > 0) would cause a decrease in J in

which case 6J < 0 in Equation (8-240). I is then a negative value and the pulse
should be fired immediately. This translates into the following logic: Evaluate I
with a nominal ignition time at current time t, and fire the pulse immediately if the
integral turns out to be negative, that is, less than or equal to 0. Equation (8-171)
is substituted into I as defined by Equation (8-243), where H i s substituted by HI,
to obtain

sec a dR

Substituting Equations (8-139a), (8-171), and (8-135) into Equation (8-244) yields
'f a2(Do - T ) a ~ ; ~
dt, a = missile acceleration (8-245)
2rn v4 at,

The function F2 depends on t, explicitly through the thrust T and mass m. Hence,
the integral of Equation (8-245) can be decomposed into two specific terms by
using the chain rule as follows
aT
-+ -
at, am at,
-1
a F ~ ~ a m
t (8-246)

Figure 8-43a describes the partial derivatives of the thrust and mass with respect
to the variation of the starting time which can be expressed as

{ ST
-
ts

t,
+ Sts 5 t < t. + tsD
+ tso 5 t < t, + t s +~ St,
St,

t, + St, 5 t < t, + I S D + St,

604 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

Figure 8-43 (a) Perturbation in Time of Thrust Pulse (b) Opti~nalGuidance

Pulsed Rocket Control

For a small nonzero tit,, Equation (8-246) evaluated a t current time is

where tit denotes a negative constant mass-flow rate. Fire the pulse immediately, if
and only if Equation (8-247) is negative. If Equation (8-247) is positive, command
ignition delay and the sustainer have not yet burned. The evaluation o f basic pulse
motor ignition control in Equation (8-247) is therefore checked in the next time
step to determine the sustaincr burn time. Observing Equation (8-247), an unknown
variable must be predicted a t current time. An approximation procedure for eval-
uating Equation (8-247) during the midcourse phasc needs to be considered. By
extending the optimization algorithm presented in Section 8.6, the algorithm for
pulsed rocket control is obtained. Both the aerodynamic controls and sustainer burn-
ing time I, are computed by Equations (8-241) and (8-242). It is also necessary to
satisfy the optimality condition and intercept constraints in Section 8.6 in addltion
to choosing a14 and at, to increase J. Comparing a conventional rocket motor to thc
pulsed rocket motor using simulation shows an average increase o f about 40 percent
Sec. 8.9

-
Pulsed Rodret Control

Target Position,
Velociry Data
L
Pulsed
Motor

Tracking Filter

and Short

Integral Table
(K,, K, in Sec. 8.6)

Guidance Law
K, = -2, K, = 6

I I
+
Guidance Command
(B)
Figure 8-43 (Continued)

in terminal velocity due to optimizing the sustainer burn time in air-launch appli-
cation. However, this improvement in velocity entails a longer missile flight time,
so that consequently the range at which the target is intercepted is decreased. Since
the computer time and storage requirements of the algorithm are severe, the nu-
merical pulsed rocket control optimization of Equation (8-247) is impractical for
onboard implementation. Thus, the implementation of the pulsed rocket control,
basically an extension of approximate optimal guidance law with the exception of
a few modifications, is considered [Glasson, 19841. The pulsed rocket control struc-
ture, shown in Figure 8-43b, was developed. A modified version of the optimal
guidance law consists of the optimal guidance blocks within the dotted lines in Figure
8-43b. The remaining blocks are the firing logic, and the optimal firing time is
determined from a precomputed schedule. In the case of multipulse rocket motors,
 606 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

the pulse thrust level and burn-time duration are specified in the motor design, thus
fixing the total impulse of each pulse. Only the pulse initiation times represent in-
flight controllable variations [Calise and Smith, 19821. The multipulse rocket motor
optimization problem can be handled by applying to each pulse the preceding ar-
guments.

8.10 IMPROVED TIME-TO-GO ESTlMATOR

Conventional guidance law such as PNG has proven to be inadequate to counteract

the threats of modern advanced fighters. A review of tactical missiles in Section 8.1
concludes that optimal control law would be the best candidate. However, imple-
mentation of most linear optimal control laws requires t,. Knowledge oft, is an
important parameter when implementing optimal guidance laws. The standard tech-
nique of dividing range by range rate information is very poor when both the missile
and target are accelerating. A better method for estimating tg must then be developed
to improve guidance law performance. Techniques for improving the accuracy of
the predicted tg estimation are discussed here. Although the evasive maneuver of a
target can be predicted as discussed previously, the estimation of target maneuver
is contaminated by noise, thus making the prediction of the t,, more difficult. There-
fore Riggs 119781 proposed a much simpler algorithm where acceleration infor-
mation was used to improve the I, estimation. The tR estimates using prelaunch
acceleration information can also be used.

8.10.1 Estimation of Time to G o

A simple estimate of time to go is t2 = -Rid. Another estimate is t, =
- l?. PI'/( l2 whcrc and i/ represent the relative position vector and velocity vec-
tor, respectively. If the velocity vector points directly at the target and the relative
acceleration does not have any changes, then the two estimates are in agreement.
The estimate of the I, can be improved using acccleration information. if an estimate
of the average relative acceleration along the LOS between the missile and the target
is represented by A, r, can be better estimatcd by using an improved rangc and
range rate approximation

8.10.2 Time-to-Go Estimate Algorithm

Riggs's algorithm is bascd on the assumption that the missile is pointing a t thc target
throughout most of thc terminal guidance phase of thc flight, and that the target is
not accclcrating [Riggs, 1978; York, 19791. Undcr this assumption, it is possible to
estimate the closing avcragc acccleration along thc LOS using only the missilc ccn-
terline componcnt of the accclcration. T w o paranlcters arc used by the acceleration
cstimatc bcforc launch: A,,,,, and A,,,,,,.The former is an cstimate of component of
Sec. 8.10 Improved T I r n e t a G o EstIma tor 607

acceleration along the x-axis beforc burnout, and the latter an estimatc ofacceleration
after burnout. The componcnt of acceleration along the x-axis then has an average
of

where t,, dcnotcs the initial time ofterminal guidance, tHo the time ofengine burnout,
and tf the time of intercept. Riggs's algorithm uses input values of A,,,,,, A,,,,,,and
an estimatc of I / . Thcn it uscs Equation (8-249) to calculate an average acceleration
A . Next, I, is obtained by solving Equation (8-148). Thcn the currcnt time is added
to t,, to cstimatc t f . Finally, Equation (8-249) is uscd again to calculate an average
acceleration A. The correct root to solvc Equation (8-248) is

Equation (8-249) has an improved version for A as follows [York, 19791

1
'4 = {A,,,,, SIC[min(tf, ~ B O ) - 101 + A,,lttlSIG[tf - max(to, tea)])
(tf - to)

The following discussion on improved time-to-go estimation is based on an excellent

article by York [1979].

Missile nonalignment. Under the condition that both the missile and
target are not highly maneuverable in a terminal guidance scenario, it is sufficiently
accurate to assume that the missile is aligned along the LOS. However, in the case
of highly maneuverable missile and target, this assumption is doubtful. This as-
sumption has further affected the accuracy of the guidance law used. From Figure
+,
2-10, cos u L = cos 0, cos where 0, and I), represent the Euler angles relating the
seeker coordinate system to the missile coordinate system in pitch and yaw com-
ponents, respectively, of UL. An estimate of the closing relative acceleration along
the LOS is required for Riggs's algorithm. With the assumption of no target ac-
celeration, the projection of the missile X-axis acceleration component onto the LOS
is
A cos UL (8-252)
Consequently, Equations (8-250) and (8-252) are used equivalently in the corrected
version of Riggs's algorithm where there is no assumption of alignment of the missile
centerline and LOS in which the parameter A in Equation (8-230) is replaced by
Equation (8-252). Hence
t, = 2Rl(V,
The estimate is expressed as tf - --
+ V V ;+
Equation (8-251)
A
4AR cos oL)
Equation (8-253)
t, tf
(8-253)
608 Aduanced Guldance System Design Chap. 8

Updating of acceleration estimate. Rather than using an average for

the entire flight, a more effective approach is to calculate an estimate of average X-
axis missile acceleration for the remainder of the flight. This method can improve
the Riggs's algorithm, which uses the simplest possible missile X-axis acceleration
profile with two functions-one for thrust-on and the other thrust-off. With this
approach, the average centerline acceleration is described by using four parameters
ama ax)^, ( A m , , , ) r ,(AmOx)D,
and (A,,,,2)D
which represent the maximum and min-
imum accelerations during thrust-on and thrust-off. Suppose that the function of
x-axis component of acceleration is f, during the thrust portion of flight and is f 2
during the thrust-off flight. The average missile acceleration along the x-axis is then
calculated as

when t f z tBO. Equation (8-254) can be represented as

Note that when missile acceleration is constant during thrust-on and constant during
thrust-off, Equation (8-255) gives Riggs's algorithm which is described in Equation
(8-251). Equation (8-255) can be used to represent the average acceleration a t ar-
bitrary time rather than the beginning of the guidance phase. Let t" be arbitrary at
current time t. Then the average acceleration from current time to intercept is

where

and

= (Ami,,)~ < tso

where the current acceleration is represented by a(t)at thrust-on or by a1 ( I ) at thrust-
off. Given a missile, a plot of missile centerline acceleration as a function of time
 Sec. 8.11 Jammtng and Clutter Eflects on Gulded Interceptor 609

is generally needed for various target scenarios. Before power-on, a ramp is a de-
sirable approxinlation. However, during power-off phase, another type of curve fit
is more appropriate as follows.

Parameters in Equation (8-257) can be calculated on board or stored as data points

for a table look-LIPmethod using linear interpolation. Therefore, the required cen-
terline acceleration parameters a , (A,,,.,,).r, '11, and (,9,,,,,.,)D in Equation (8-236)
become available.

8.11 JAMMING AND CLUTTER EFFECTS ON GUIDED

INTERCEPTOR

The effects on a radar-homing inrcrceptor due tojamming and clutter environments

and the effects of advcrse weather on an IR-homing missile are presented here.
Further details of these are presented in Book 4 of the series, while the background
material is presented in Book 1 of the series.

8.11.1 D e c e p t i o n Repeater Jammer

The idea of a repeater jammer typically used in electronic countermeasure (ECM)

techniques is essentially to receive, then retransmit an enemy's radar signal. Before
retransmitting back the signal, it first undergoes amplification, a possible time delay,
amplitude modulation, and a Doppler shift in frequency, all according to the par-
ticular jamming model being used. The objective in using a repeater jammer is to
mask the true signal by transmitting a modified version of this signal to the enemy's
tracking radar causing it to in turn break lock. Monopulse tracking radars are
jammed by the introduction of artificial glint onto the jamming return. One of the
most important considerations is the jam-to-signal ratio (JSR), which must be on
the order of at least 7 to 10 dB if the jammer is to be able to capture the radar's
tracking circuits. This represents a repeater gain and power output specification
[Hoisington, 19811. In order to calculate the JSR at the semiactive radar receiver,
an expression for the repeated jammer signal is first developed. At the self-protection
repeater jammer, the transmitted radar signal spectrum received, PJR, as shown in
Skolnik [1980], is P ~ R = PAG~X'GJR/[(~T)~R~RLJ] where GjR denotes the receiver
antenna gain o f t h e repeater jammer, G, denotes radar transmitter gain, PA denotes
average radar transmitter power, R ~ denotes
R jammer-to-radar distance, A denotes
\vavelength, and L denotes loss term. Multiplication of the preceding equation by
the repeater's electronic gain G , gives the output of the repeater PI
610 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

The repeated jammer signal spectrum at the missile's receiver is therefore

P,,,j = P j C m , h 2 G j ~ I [ ( 42 R,VJLR]
n )2 (8-259)
Substitution of Equation (8-258) into Equation (8-259) yields PmJ =
P A C ~ G , ~ X ~ G ~ R G ~ ~ ~ , / [ ( ~where T ) ~C RJ-r~is Rthe
R$ ~LRL
antenna ~ ]of the
gain
repeater's transmitter, C,,, is the receiver gain of the missile, and R,,j is the missile-
to-jammer distance. The signal spectrum returned to the missile's receiver P R is
generally given by

where RCS denotes the radar cross section of the target. JSR can now be computed
from P,,]/PR = JSR = G J R ~ - r T G c ~ 2 / (RCS
4 ' r rL R L ~where
) it can be seen that JSR
depends on the repeater's gains. Defining S , = JSR RCS, where this product rep-
resents the magnified RCS desired from the standpoint of the repeater, the electronic
gain of the repeater can be expressed as

The jammer's power can be found by substituting Equation (8-261) into Equation
(8-258) resulting in

The required repeater gain and power output arc specified by Equations (8-261)
and (8-262). The JSR for a given EW system is proportional to the square of the
distance bentyeen the jammer and radar. The relative strength of the rargct echo to
the jamming echo ultimately determines whether target detection occurs. Again,
the purpose of the repeater's jamming is to provide false target information to the
enemy's tracking radar to essentially mask or conceal the real target signal. For a
semiactive homing receiver, the JSR may actually approach a constant value since
R not diminish as much as R,,, during the homing phase. In the case of active
R ~ does
homing, RjR and Rng are equal so that the JSR diminishes rapidly in proportion to
the distance between target and missile. This means that the semiactive receiver is
more easily deceived than the active receiver in an EW environment.

8.11.2 Clutter

Clutter is the name given to any unwanted radar echo. These echoes can contaminate
the radar receiver signal, making target detection more difficult. In the case of aircraft
detection, clutter in the radar can come from reflections from land, sea, rain, or
even birds. Turbulence and other atmospheric effects can also produce clutter. As
discussed in Chapter 6.7, when the target is flying a t a suficiently low altitude that
the radar main beam intercepts the ground, the large illuminated ground results in
a reflected power (called clutter) that is typically several orders of magnitude larger
Sec. 8.11 Jamming and Clutter E f f e c t s on Guided Interceptor 611

than the power reflected from the aircraft, and aircraft detection is thus denied.
Multiple-pulse returns are added equally for clutter and target signal, and so n o
advantage is gained by integration. The problem of clutter led to the pursuit of a
different type of radar, one that utilized the Doppler frequency of a moving target
as its basic signal, which then could readily (in principle) be separated from stationary
non-Doppler shifted ground clutter.
Ground clutter effects on the semiactive homing radar-guided AAM have pre-
viously been studied [Miwa and Imado, 19861. A guided missile is significantly
affected by the main lobe clutter. This effect can be avoided by employing a guid-
ance-shaping concept described in Section 8.6. Figure 8-44 shows a target scenario
involving a semiactive AAM. The figure also gives the relative positions o f the
missile and radar. A transmitter is located on the aircraft radar and energy is being
radiated primarily to the target. Howeoer, because of the side lobes, energy is also
being radiated in the other directions. A receiver antenna is located on the missile,
whose speed is V,,, to direct it to the target, but this antenna also receives clutter
through its side lobes. All relevant terms are defined in the figure. Skolnik [I9701
gives the clutter power spectrum dP due to a small radiated area on the earth dS,
as

where A denotes the duty cycle of the radar and a, denotes the bistatic back-
scattering coefficient of dS. When the transmitted waveform is a rectangular pulse
train of constant width T and pulse-repetition period T, the duty cycle is simply
TIT. T h e typical duty cycle of a pulse radar used for aircraft detection is on the
order of 0.001, while for a CW radar transmitting continuously, the duty cycle is
unity [Skolnik, 19801. The product of the back-scattering coefficient a, and the

-
dS earth

Figure 8-44 Geometry and Designation of Variables (a) Side View (b) Bird's-Eye
View (From [Miwa and Imado, 19861, 8 1986 AIAA)
612 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

resolvable ground area u, dS gives the RCS o f a patch of ground. The antenna
patterns of the transmitter and receiver hare azimuthal symmetry with respect to
the antenna axis, so that G , and G,,,,become functions o f E A and E,,,, respectively
[Miwa and Imado, 19861. The back-scattering coefficient at dS with respect to the
scattering coefficient from A to M has the direction of p which is a vector sum of
unit vectors a and rrt%n Figure 8-44b. The curvature of the earth is assumed to
have a negligible effect.
The small area dS is chosen in the following manner. With the aircraft at one
focus and the missile at the other focus, an ellipsoid of revolution is formed such
that, anywhere on the surface, the range of the clutter path (R = R.4 + RM) is
constant. The intersection of the ellipsoid with the earth's surface defines an elipse.
Another elipse whose center is slightly shifted is formed by the increment of R.
The dS is selected dividing area between these two ellipses. If the target has a velocity
relative to the receiver, there will be a frequency shift in the received signal away
from the transmitted frequency f o by the amount +- f,, which is defined as the time
rate change of path d divided by the wavelength fd = dlh where the combined path
dis the path from the transmitter to the target and then to the receiver. The frequency
shift is specified by fd if thc distance between the target and the receiver is decreasing
and vice versa [Skolnik, 19801. The Doppler-frequency shift f , due to clutter is
cornposcd of t w o terms, one representing a Doppler-shifted frequency f o due to
the reflection at dS, and another representing the Doppler-shifted frequency of the
direct transinission to the receiver. The expression for f,is

and this quantity is due to the receiver n~cchanisn~. A clutter frcqucncy spectrunl
is obtaincd by s u ~ n ~ n i nthc
g dP over the entire area. The frcqucncy may be a main-
lobe rcturn or sidc-Iobc rcturn. Using Equations (8-263) and (8-264) in conjunction
with simulation tcchniques, it is possible to draw a plot ofspectrum versus frequency
of clutter at any intcrccpt time point. The targct signal spectrum at the receiver P,,,,
is computcd from

which is the rcsult as found in Equation (8-XI), ~vhilcthc corresponding Doppler-

frcqucncy shift f , is
ff = {ftl+ ( cos + *'C
v,4.1' cos * T.4 + k'.). COS vT.21
(8-266)
+ [',\r COS *.,,T)IA) - { f , ~+ ( V n COS @.4.\1 - VIP,COS @.\1.4)lhI
The t w o tcrnls in Equation (8-266) reprcsent thc 1)oppler-shifted frcquency f o due
to rcflcction by thc targct and thc 13oppler-shifrcd frcqucncy f , l of thc dircct trans-
mission to thc receiver, rcspcctivcly. In a straightforward tnanncr, the Doppler
spectrum vcrsus frcquency plot for target signal is easily obtaincd. It is possible to
simulatc cluttcr and target-signal frequencies and spectra by using mcthods that
 Sec. 8.12 Hultlmode Guidance System Design 613

combine the bistatic radar equations, that is, Equations (8-263) through (8-266).
with simulation techniques. It is equally possible to obtain the solution to any type
ofclutter and weapon system using sim~ldrtcchniqucs. In the case of the radar missile
and targct being in line with each other, the value off, in Equation (8-264) becomes
2V,,,/u, while the value o f f , in Equation (8-266) becomes 2 V,,,/A + Vr(cos Y +
cos 4'' T I I ) I X .

8.11.3 IR S e e k e r in Weather Condition

An IR sensor measures the LOS angle which is used in guidance. A noise sensed
by an IR seeker can bias the measured LOS anglc from the true LOS angle. For a
given temperature difference AT between the target and the background, the power
per arca of targct emitted P , is defined by P, = ~ K T "Tp. where K denotes Boltz-
man's constant, T target temperature, and p fraction in the frequency band given
black body radiation. If the detector surface of IR seeker is of the area A, the power
on thc detector P, is obtained by P, = Pt.Ae-SRA,l(nR') where 6 denotes attenuation
factor. .4, observable target
- area, and R range between detector and target. The
noise equivalent power P,,, which is the function of specific detectivity D and noise
bandwidth w,,, is defined in Tso and Lobbia [I9861 as P,, = ( 4 w ~ ) ' l ' l D The
. mea-
sured LOS angle u detected from the IR seeker is the sum of the true LOS angle
u ,,,,,. and the LOS angle error a,.

in which power spectrum +,,, of the LOS angle error u , due to noise is given by

and Of denotes instantaneous field of view. The IR homing performance can be

evaluated based on Equations (8-267) and (8-268).

8.12 MULTlMODE GUIDANCE SYSTEM DESIGN

In this section, a multimode guidance system is introduced. Further details of mul-

timode guidance system design are t resented in Book 4 of the series.
T o compensate for the limitations of individual sensors such as IR or RF seekers
and to improve the overall tracking ~erformance,a conceptually complete, imple-
mentably simple, and highly efficient approach called the adaptive multimode track-
ing and guidance ( A M T G ) system is employed. This system consists o f t w o or more
heterogeneous sensors, for example, RF and IR in this case, and this configuration
enables the system to work with the sensors in different modes. Each sensor, ac-
cording to its design capability, is best adapted to a particular operation condition.
The combination of several types of sensors can render the system to perform highly
efficiently under almost all types of mission conditions. Moreover, the combined
614 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

design can reduce equipment weight and speed up signal processing. In addition,
dependability is significantly increased with respect to the case of single sensor or
single type of sensor in the sense of high system reliability and wide operation
condition.
The functional diagram of an AMTG structure is shown in Figure 8-45a where
the center-of-reflection measurements (position, azimuth, elevation, and occasion-
ally Doppler rates) and target attitude measurements (pitch, yaw, and roll angles,
shape) are fused [Yang and Lin, 19911. This structure is very relevant in a highly
maneuvering environment [Yang et al., 19911. The real dimension information of
the target provided by an imaging sensor can be exploited by this scheme and it is
technologically feasible due to fast growing imaging sensors and computation tech-
niques. Advanced tracking and guidance systems will be essentially constructed
based on this adaptive multimode concept, that is, to integrate imaging sensors not
only for target matchinglselection in the final impact but also for target attitude
estimation.
Another advantage of an AMTG system is the fact that an imaging sensor
estimates target maneuvers more efficiently. Target attitude variables, deduced from

------- 1
I

/
/
/
'liacking.
'large1
I'oinling.
and -
+ ('onln>l
\
--
.-S
a
:Ki;nya:l4
LL
c!%. A

\ ,------- -, v
4
2 v
Ki~rnlalic
\ I Sig~~al
['roccssing Model l-0
L - - - - - - - l 1:ilIcr

and
Clullcr
(A)
Figure 8-45 Adaptwe Multinlode Tracking atid Guidancc (AMTG) Systrln (a)
Sensor Level Fusion (b) Track Level Fusion (c) Partially IJroccsscdData Fusion (di
Multimodc Guidancc System Using Optimal CI'NG Algorithm with LOS Angle
and LOS Hatc Estimator
 -----------
I
lmagc Altitude I
I'm~~sor I:ilter
A
/ r------
1 ---- - - - - Mod.:
L - - I'rwi%inY
E
8e
/ I- .rarst 1 2%
/ I Maneuvering I
L -Model- A r----1 ,,=' 'Fr:tckiny,
-+ Poinliny, -
I Ilnvironmcnt CL EI and
r----I Mdel
,
('CIIII~)~
L----J
\ Kinematic
\ Mulel I
L----J
\ C - - - - - - -1

\ LSi~n:~~rtw~x~i~eMgeI~
t t
Signal
I'rwcssor

and
(:luncr (B)

1
Image
Processor

/ I - - - - - - - 1
I Iliiage Rwessing Model1
/ L - - - - - -

/
r - - - - 3
I Environment
Model
,
L----_l

\
\ ------ 7

\
\ - I
I'd?
Center of Sigml
Reflection Processor
Sensor

----------
Jamming
and

Cluner (C)

Figure 8-45 (Continued)

616 Aduanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

RFlIR MUL.TIMODE SENSOR INTEfiRATIONIFUSION

(IR, K[.' Active/SI.miactive/Parsive)

I -

W: Fnvironrnent Condition
SC: SensorCapabilities
TC: Tgrget Cbamcteristin
Figure 8-45 (Continued)

target image, provide fast and reliable measurements for maneuvering detection and
estimation. The delay in maneuvering detection using position and angle measure-
ments only can thus be significantly reduced by using imaging sensors [Sworder
and Hutchins, 1989; Yang et al., 19911.
8.12.1 WflR Multimode Sensor IntegrationlFusion
The structural advantage of the AMTG system depicted in Figures 8-45a through
8-45c is further reinforced by implementing powerful supporting algorithms. Ad-
aptation and fusion algorithms are two key components. The adaptation part is to
assess for which type of sensors the current operation environment condition is best
suitable. This adaptation can be achieved by an on-line identification of environment
conditions and by consideration of sensor capabilities and target characteristics. This
results in an optimal weightinglbalance of sensors available on board. The fusion
counterpart is designed to combinelintegrate these heterogeneous sensor data in an
optimal way. The optimal fusion algorithm is designed to account for each sensor's
measurements, measurement uncertainties, and relative confidence of the sensor
generated by the adaptation algorithm.
The adaptation/fusion concept has a desirable flexibility when applied to a
multimode configuration. Application of adaptationlfusion to raw sensor data re-
sults in sensor-level fusion (Figure 8-45a) which demonstrates under certain cir-
cumstances better performance. O n the other hand, its application to filtered data
o f sensors, that is, thc estimates obtained by an individual sensor as it operates alone,
provides a track-level fusion (Figure 8-4jb). Between these two extremities, fusion
at the partially processed data level (Figure 8-45c) is possible with the AMTG system
depending on the situation.
Sec. 8.12 Nultimode Guidance System Design

OIrIIMA1 CI'N(; Al (iOUl'l1IMWITII ACOMPI IZMI:NrARY

I (kSAN(il.1, AND IUI'I;I Sl1MAN)U

Figure 8-45 (Continued)

In Figure 8-45d, a simplified AMTG system is illustrated where the RF and

IR sensors are fused at the partially processed data level. This system is designed
to validate both RF and IR tracking data and to integrate the IR LOS rate information
into a combined sensor selection and weighting scheme. For ideal operating con-
ditions without jamming, clutter, and severe weather environment, one or a com-
posite set of measurements is used for guidance filter input. A sequential process
of measured LOS angles (aRF) from active RF and rate (uIR)from IR seekers is
passed through a signal processing testing algorithm for SIN threshold and vali-
dation region tests. The appropriate signal is then selected to be used in operation.
The sensor integrationlfusion technique is to generate a composite LOS angle a,
at the seeker configuration selection by weighting the respective selected signals,
URF and a , (which
~ is the integration of uIR).The weighting value is chosen to
quantify the relative faith in a particular measurement. This weighting function or
heterogeneous sensor data fusion is obtained by optimization with respect to en-
vironmental conditions, sensor capacities, and target characteristics.
In a jamming and clutter environment, the measured radar signal from a jam-
nler or clutter is considered as a target, thus degrading target tracking, as shown
in Section 8.11. A set of precomputed thresholds needs to be stored on board. By
monitoring the computed SIN of the RF and IR seeker, the effects due to the presence
of adverse RF and E O environment can be examined. Computed levels of SIN
below the threshold will cause the logic to offload the RF or IR measurements from
further processing. The validation procedure of chi-square test can be used to detect
the presence of RF jamming and clutter. This procedure employs a validation region.
A measurement within this region is of interest with high confidence probability.
Measurements falling outside the validation region indicate the onset of jamming
 Sec. 8.13 Advanced Guidance law implementation issues 619

ance described in Figure 8-45d. The results show that larger differences between
sidelobe and mainlobc magnitudes result in bcttcr performance since the effects of
sidelobe jamming become less severe for an RF scckcr. Without the janlniing, clut-
ter, and adverse wcathcr effects, the performance of multimodc guidance has very
good results as expected. The performance of a seeker using R F only in j a n ~ n ~ i n g
or a clutter environment demands very low sidclobc antenna, which can be costly.
Likewise, the pcrforniancc of a seeker using IR only in adverse environment can be
severely dcgradcd. O n the contrary, the miss-distance performance with multimode
guidance in these severe conditions is sholvn to be improved. Thc performance is
acceptable if severe conditions do not exist all the time during homing. However.
if the sevcrc conditions persist throughout homing, an HOJ mode is used to intercept
the jani~ncr.

8.13 ADVANCED GUIDANCE LAW IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

This section presents issues associated with the design and implementation of an
optimal guidance algorithm in Ada for AAM. ~ e t a i l c ddiscussions can bc found in
Evers et al. [1988], on which the iollowing discussions arc based. The most critical
implemcntation issue involves limited n~icroprocessorthroughput, which is asso-
ciated with the run-time overhead of the Ada language and the efficiency of Ada
cross-compilers. Other issues center around the design and coding of the guidance
software and the assessment of rhe throughput and memory requirements of the
code in a simulated microprocessor environment. Conclusions from a current study
on these implementation issues are also discussed. Research on the beyond-visual-
range air-to-air guidance problem [Cloutier et al., 19881 has prompted much lvork
in this area. The development of numerous guidance law formulations based on
optimal control theory have shown performance improvements over P N G in com-
puter simulations. However, the problems associated with implementing the al-
gorithms on missile-quality microcomputers have not been studied closely enough.
Also, problems associated with the required use of Ada (MIL-STD-1815) and the
MIL-STD-1750A 16-bit instruction-set architecture for embedded computer appli-
cations by the Air Force have not been considered. The goal of this study [Evers
et al., 19881 was to investigate issues like these as a first step to providing basic
research results for further development. In this study, the following algorithms
were implemented: singular perturbation (SP) for midcourse guidance [Cheng and
Gupta, 19861, and P N G using filtered seeker measurements for terminal guidance.
A Fairchild F9450 microprocessor was selected for the processor-in-the-loop simu-
lation testing, as was done in Lin [1982(h)].

Implementation problems. In addition to the previously mentioned

design issues, there remains the goal of having the guidance algorithm run in real
time (for example, 40-Hz command update in terminal) on a microprocessor. One
obstacle has to do with the limited word length, memory, and throughput of the
620 Advanced Guidance System Design Chap. 8

current microproccssor~that are suited to use with n~issiles.T h e design work itself,
of course, is done on large computers that are not similarly hindered. The MIL-
STD-1750A instruction-set architecture now required by the Air Force for embed-
ded applications, has a word length of 16 bits and a memory address space of 64K
words. An extended Kalman filter implemented in hardware that satisfies this cri-
terion may show divergence caused by truncation effects in the covariance matrix:
computations. This is particularly true when the different state covariances differ
by several orders of magnitude, as may be the case with ~llissileguidance filters in
LQG . formulations. The extra computatio~~al effort associated with the usual altcr-
natives, that is, using the Joseph form o f the covariance update equation or a square-
root filter formulation, increases throughput requirements o f the microproccssor
[Maybeck, 19791.
Evcrs et al. (19881 noted that the major implementation issue for complex
algorithms may be associated with the design methodology and high-order pro-
gramming language selected for the embedded software. For large software systems,
the use o f a high-order language and structured coding techniques improves reli-
ability and maintainability. For this reason, the Ada high-order language \vas de-
veloped for use throughout the life cycle of D o D embedded systems. The idca is
to use Ada in the design, development, implcmcntation, and maintcnancc stages of
the soft\varc lifc cycle. Combincd with modern softwarc dcsign 171cthods. Ada lends
itself to producing a modular, structured, reliable end product. For example. guid-
ance, estimation, and autopilot functions are dcsigned at the top lcvcl as separate
semi-indcpendcnt ~nodulcs.This design is ~vrittenin Ada which, when successfully
compiled, assures that thc rnodules will function in unison as dcsircd. This is fol-
lowed by detailed coding of cach algorithm. Follo\ving co~npilationand debugging,
the software is rcady for processor-in-thc-loop testing. \vhich involves cross-COIII-
pilation of the Ada code into objcct code for thc microprocessor 011 xvhich it will
cxccutc. 111 this way, the algorithm software performancc is being cvaluatcd in t11c
embedded cnvironmcnt for \vhich it was desiencd. u

Rcal-timc pcrformancc is strongly affected by object codc cfficiency. Unfor-

tunately, Ada carrics an ovcrhcad penalty into thc objcct codc which affects both
mcmory and throughput performance. O f course, any high-ordcr language is sim-
ilarly pcnalizcd to somc cxtcnt whcn compared ~ i t optirnizcd
h handwritten asscm-
bly codc. However, sincc Ada is a rclativcly ncw language, cross-cotnpilcr maturity
will remain a critical issuc i n thc design of Ada cmbcddcd soft\varc. Ilcsults to datc
indicatc that inlplc~ncntingthc SI' guidancc algorithm on a 10-bit microproccssor
in Ada will not adversely affect guidancc pcrformancc. It should be pointcd o u t ,
howcvcr, that the F9450 has 23-bit hardwarc floating-point capabilitics. It may
happen that diffcrcnt rcsults arc gcncratcd by implementing thc algorithm on a
microproccssor with reduced-lcngth floating point, or in a fixed-point arithrnctic
environmcnt. Althoueh " mcnlorv constraints of thc MIL-STD-17jOA instrucr~onsct
should havc no impact on study results, thesc should bc considcrcd in any s y s t c ~ l ~
design. Scvcral of thc advanced guidancc algorithms dcvclopcd may rcquirc large
memory.
Sec. 8.13 Advanced Guidance Law Implementation Issues 621

Throughput limitations of the microprocessor may have a significant impact

on the pcrforniance of a guidance algorithm based on optimal control theory. In
fact, it is not certain whcthcr such lirnitatiolls might eve11 prevent implementation
altogether. This is cogpled with the run-tirne overhead associated with Ada and
with the efficiency of Ada cross-compilers. Although the S1' algorithm is projected
to utilize only 58 percent (with overhead allowance) of the F9450 throughput, guid-
ance is obviously not the only function required of the nlicroprocessor in an actual
tnissilc implcnlcntation. Evers ct al. [I9881 stated that in the original design, a square-
root state estimation algorithm was used which demonstrated good performance
on a large computer. The same algorithm, however, contained throughput require-
ments which exceeded the capacity of the F9450 and had to be replaced. The in-
terdependency of the terminal guidancclstate estimator algorithms suggests main-
taining an awareness of throughput requirements from the start in any design effort.
The results obtained up to this point indicate that optimal guidance algorithms which
have demonstrated improved performance over PNG are suitable for implemen-
tation in current n~icroprocessors,as has been established in the processor-in-the-
loop studies. Such studies also determine the actual computational burden placed
on the microprocessor by the SP algorithm. The F9430 has been replaced by a
microprocessor that yields better than 30 percent improvement in throughput ca-
pabilities. Thus, continuing advances in microprocessors make the implementation
oicomplcx guidance algorithms in embedded systems an even more realistic prop-
osition.
 Bibliography
ABRA~IOX~ITZ. M. A N D I. A. STEGUN,eds., Haridbook of Aifathemarical F~lircriorrsu~itkFormirlas,
Graplts, and Aifarlrcmarirnl Tdblcs. No. 55 in National Bureau of Standards Applied Math-
ematics Series, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1964.
ACKEIISON, G. A. A N I ) K. S. FL', "On State Estimation in Switching Environment," IEEE
Trans. ,41rro. Coi~trol,AC-15, February 1970, pp. 10-16.
AGARDograph Lecture Series 117, "Multivariable Analysis and Design Techniques," Oct.
1981.
AGGARU~AL, R. K. A N D C. R. MOORE,"Near-Optimal Guidancc Law for a Bank-to-Turn
Missile," Pror. ojrlte American Coilrrol Coirferetrce,June 1984.
AIAA, Aeronaulits ai~dAstroilnt~tits.vol. 20, no. 11, Nov. 1982, cover page.
AIDALA, V. J . A N I ) S. E. HAMMEL, "Utilization ofModificd Polar Coordinates for Bearings-
Only Tracking." IEEE Tra~ls.or1 .41itonlatir Coiitrlil. vol. AC-28, no. 3, March 1983, pp.
283-293.
ALPEIZT. J., "Miss llistance Analysis for Command Guidcd Missiles," J. C~ridaitre,Co~ltrolG
Dyiramics, vol. 11, no. 6, Novcmber-December 1988, pp. 481-487.
AMERICAN G N C CORP.,"Optimized On-Sensor Fused RFlIR Guidancc System." invention
disclosure, January 1990.
A M E I ~ I CGANNC Colr~... "Multivariable Control Systcm Design by H' Optimization Tech-
nique," AGNC Report No. 165, January 1989(a).
AMERICAN G N C Cort~,.,"Advanced Multivariable/Optimal Control Systcn~Design Tech-
niques," AGNC Rcport No. 180, January 1989(b).
 AMEIIICAN G N C C O R I ~"Multivariable
.. Control System Design by H" Optimization Tech-
nique," AGNC Report No. 150, January 1988(a).
AMEIII(:AN G N C COIIIB.."Advaticed Multivari~bleIOptimalCotltrol System Design Tech-
niques." AGNC Report No. 152. January 1988(b).
AMEIIICAN G N C CORI'., "NGC I'rocessing. Filtering, and Estimation," AGNC Report No.
156. January 1988(c).
AMERICAN G N C Colw., "Multivariable Control System Design by H" Optimization Tech-
nique," AGNC Report No. 126, June 1987(a).
AMEIIICAN G N C CORI).,"Advanced MultivariablelOptimaI Control System Design Tech-
niques." AGNC Report No. 128, June 1987(b).
AMEIIICAN G N C CORI).,"H' Optimization Applications to Advanced Navigation, Guidance,
and Control Design," A G N C Report No. 135, July 1987(c).
AMEIIICAN G N C CORP.,"Robustness Analysis," AGNC Report No. 28, January 1986(a).
AMERICAN G N C CORP.,"Performance and Dynamics Analysis," AGNC Report No. 30,
January 1986(b).
J AMERICAN G N C CORI).,"Dynamics System Modeling and Simulation," AGNC Report No.
32, January 1986(c).
AMEIIICAN G N C CORI).,"Flight Control System," AGNC Report No. 34, January 1986(d).
AMEIIICAN G N C COIIP.,"Servo Selections and Limitations," AGNC Report No. 35, January
1986(r.).
AMERICAN G N C CORP.,"NGC Processing, Filtering, and Estimation," AGNC Report. No.
38, January 1986(f).
AMERICAN G N C CORP.,"Inertial Navigation,'' A G N C Report No. 42, January 1986(g).
AMERICAN G N C CORP.,"Advanced Navigation System," AGNC Report No. 43, January
1986(h).
AMERICAN G N C CORP.,"Guidance Processing," AGNC Report. No. 46, January 1986(i).
AMERICAN G N C CORP.,"Guidance System," AGNC Report No. 47, January 1986(j).
AMERICAN G N C CORP., "Advanced Guidance System Design," AGNC Report No. 48,
January 1986(k).
AMERICAN G N C CORP.,"Advanced Optimal Control Synthesis Techniques and Their Ap-
plications," AGNC Report No. 50, January 1986(1).
AMERICAN G N C CORP.,"Advanced Generalized Singular Optimal Control Design," AGNC
Report N o . 52, January 1986(m).
AMERICAN G N C CORP., "Multirnode Body-Decoupling Guidance," invention disclosure,
January 1986(n).
AMIEUX, J. C. A N D B. CLAUDINON, "Multifunction Spacecraft Attitude Estimation and Nav-
igation System," AGARD-CP-350, 1984, pp. 9-1 to 9-17.
ANDERSON, B. D. 0 . AND J. B. MOORE,Linear Optimal Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1971.
ANDERSON, G. M., "Comparison of Optimal Control and Differential Game Intercept Missile
Guidance Laws," Journal of Giridanre and Control, vol. 4, no. 2, March-April 1981, pp.
109-115.
ANDERSON, G. M., "A Near Optimal Closed-Loop Solution Method for Nonsingular Zero-
Sum Differential Games," Joirnrul oJOptimization Theory and Applications, vol. 13, no. 3,
1974, pp. 303-318.
 ANDREWS, A., "A Square Root Formulatiot~of the K a l n ~ a Covariance
t~ Equations," AIAA
Jo~~rnnl,June 1968, pp. 1165-1166.
ANDRUS,J. F., I. F. BURNS,A N D J. Z. WOO, "Study of Optimal Guidance Algorithms,"
AIAA ]our.rial, December 1970, pp. 2252-2257.
ANDRY,A. N., E. Y. SI-LAPIRO, A N D J. C. CHUNG,"Eige~~structure Assignment for Linear
Systems," IEEE Trans. Aero. Elec. Sysr., vol. AES-19, September 1983, pp. 711-729.
ANON,"V/STOL Inertial Navigation with Radar Update Capability," IBM Corp., August
1969. (Available as NASA CR-86234, August 1969)
ARBENZ,K., "Proportional Navigation of Nonstationary Targets," IEEE Trans. on Aerospace
Electroi~icSyirer~r.c,July 1970, pp. 455-457.
ARNOLD,W. F., A N D A. J. LAUB,"A Software Package for the Solution of Generalized
Algebraic Riccati Equations," 22rtd IEEE CDC, December 1983, pp. 415-417.
ARROW,A., "Status and Concerns for Bank-to-Turn Control of Tactical Missiles," J. Guid-
ance, Coiltrol at~dDyila~rtics,vol. 8, no. 2, March-April 1985, pp. 267-274.
ARROW,A., "Status and Concerns for Preferred Orientation Control of High Performance
Antiair Tactical Missiles," Paper No. 83-2198, Pro(, of the AIAA Guidance and Control
Con.ferrttic. August 1983, pp. 236-244.
ARROW,A.. "An Analysis of Aerodynamic Requirements for Coordinated Bank-to-Turn
Autopilots," NASA CR-3644, November 1982.
ARROW,A. A N L ) T. R. STEVENS, "Prclin~inaryAutopilot Study for the U.S. Air Force Com-
pact Estended Medium Range Air-to-Air Technology Missile Configuration," AIAA
paper 87-2579-CP. July 1987.
ARROW,A. A N D D . E. WILLIAMS, "Comparison of Classical and Moderl~Autopilot Design
and Analysis Techniques for a Tactical Air-to-Air Bank-to-Turn Missile," Prof. AIA'4
G.VC Coi!f., August 1987, pp. 1360-1371.
ASIIER, R. B. A N D J. 1'. MATUSZEN:SKI, "Optimal Guidance with Maneuvering Targets," J.
Spocrcrqfi, vol. 11, no. 3, March 1974, pp. 204-206.
S . A N I , 1'. FALH,Oprii~talCorlr~~l.
A T ~ I A NM. Ne\v York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
AUSMAN, J. S.. "Tactical Aircraft Weapon Delivery Systems," UCLA Dept. of Engineering
and Scicrice Short Course Programs, Engineering 839.19, April 1986.
AXELBANI), E. I., "Missilc Guidance and Control," UCLA Dept. of Engineering and Sciencc
Short Course Programs. Engineering 867.12, Section I . July 1986.
AXELBANI), E. 1. . A N D F. W. H A I ~ I )"Quasi-Optimum
Y. Proportional Navigatioll," 2116 Ha~r~oii
li~rcr?~nti@r~nl
Cot[ferri~rrSycrrirr Srio~rcx.1969, pp. 417-411.
A I I AE. I. A N I , F. W. H A I ( I ) YL. L Q ~ a ~ i - O p t1'roportional
i ~ l ~ u ~ ~ ~Navigation," IEEE
Tm11.c.o ~ .41110ma1ic
i Conrrol, 1)cccmbc.r 1Y70(a), pp. 020-026.
A x r : ~I < A N I ) , E. I. A N I ) F. W. I<AI<I)Y."Optin~al Feedback Missilc Guidance," 3rd Hnlc'nii
Ittfcrr~nrionalCor~fercirri~ Sysrriti Srirrlcc.c. 1970(b), pp. 874-877.
J BALSA. Y . , K. IN(;L.L, AN,, I<. M. HOWL,"Suboptimal Guidance with Linc-of-Sight Rate
Only Mcasurcn~rnts."Proc. ,41.4,4 Grridanrc, h'o;ll,i,qario~~ atrd Corlrrol C F I ! ~ August
. 1988.
B A I I F T11. I . S.. "Kalrtian Filtering: Applications." Sysrci~t.cC- Co~~rrol Errryrlol~cdin,cd. M. (;.
Singh. vol. 3. Oxford. Great Urit;iin: I'crganloll I'rcss. 1987.
J. M.. H. M . I I < E L A N I ) ,A N I ) U. E. UUI~I(I:T-~,
UAILEY. "SOIIICSystcrl~Lill~itations011 IIcspo~lS~
Tinic for Accrlcration Controllrd Missiles," IEEE Sorrrl~rosrrtlrt'83 I'ri~rrrditrgs, April 198.1.
 N . , "A Dual Control Hot~iingGuidance Law," AIAA Grid., Nav., and
~ ~ , \ L A K I I I ? I I N A NS.
.
Cot~frtllC o r ~ f .August 1087. pp. 836-841.
B\I.AKI<IYIIN S.ANN. , A N I ) J . L. SPEYEIC, LLCoordi~iat~-Tra~i~formatioti-Ba~ed Filter for Im-
proved Target Tracking." J. Clridarlc~,Cotrtrol, or~dDyrrantits, vol. 9, no. 6. Novcmber-
I>cccrnbcr 1086, pp. 704-700.
BANK>.I). S.. ' L C ~ t i t iWJVC n ~ ~(CW) ~ ~ Radar," E.4SCOM '75 R~cordirqs,IEEE Pub. '75
C H O 008-5 EASCON, 1975.
B.+I<-II~zI IA(:K.I . Y., "Identity Hctwcen INS Position and Vclocity Error Models," J. Glridarlce
'rrrcl Cdrrrrol, vol. 4, no. 5, September-October 1981, pp. 568-571J.
B.AI<-~IZIIAC:K. 1. Y . A N I ) N . H E I < \ I \ N ,' L C ~ t i t rTheoretic
~I Approach to Inertial Navigation
Systems." J. Gtti~Llrrrr,Cor~rrol,nr~dD ~ I I C I I Jvol. I ~ C11.
~ , no. 3. May-June 1988. pp. 237-
245.
BAI<.\II\II, H. R. A N I ) C . L. 1 ) ~MARCO."Criteria for Robust Stability with Structured Un-
certainty: A Perspective," Proc. Arnericntr Cor~trolCord, June 1987.
B A I I N EJ.. ~ . "Advances in Guidance and Control Systems and Technology," Keynote Ad-
dress. AGAR]>-CP-411. 1987.
BARON, C.. "Technical Evaluation Report," AGARII-C1'-431, 1987.
B.AI<-SII:\L(>M. Y., "Tracking Methods in a Multitargct Environnlent," IEEE Trans. or1 .'ill-
to111'lric Cotrrrol, vol. AC-23. 1978, p. 618.
BAR-SII.ALOM, Y.. C. CII.AN(;, ANL) H. A. P. BLOM,"Tracking a Maneuvering Target Using
Input Estimation vs. the Interacting Multiple Model Algorithm," IEEE Trarls. Aerosp.
Elritrotr. Syjr., March 1989.
BAII-SII.ALOM, Y. A N D T. E. FC>IIT>MNN, Trackirl.~nrld Dara Associatiori. New York: Academic
Press. 1988.
BII-SIIALOM, Y. A N D P. B. L u ~ I LLEstimatio~i
, and Applications to Tracking," A C C Tutorial
Workshop, June 1986.
B.AIITON, D. K., Radar Sysrrttl A11'11yjis.13edhan1, MA: Artech House, 1976, p. 272.
UAIITON, 1). K. ANLI H . R. WARD.Harldbook of Rrrdar .Lleasicretnerrt. Dedham, MA: Artech
House, Inc., 1984, Appendix D.2.
BASHEIN, G. ANLI C. P. NEUMAN. "Linear Feedback Guidance for Interception and Rendez-
vous in a Stochastic Environment," 1st Hawaii Olternariortal Cotgerence Systems Sciences,
1968, pp. 654-657.
BEKIII, E., "Adaptive Kalman Filter for Tracking Maneuvering Targets," J. Guidance, Cotrtrol,
'~rrdDyrramics, vol. 6, no. 5, September-October 1983, pp. 414-416.
BELLANTONI, J. F. A N D K. W. DODGE,"A Square Root Formulation of the Kalman-Schmidt
Filter," AIAAJotrnr~ll, vol. 5, no. 7, July 1967, pp. 1309-1314.
BELSLEY, D., E. KUH, .INL? R. WELSCH, Regrmiott Diu~r~ostics: Ide~rtifYi~~g
l~lfl~derltial
Data arrd
Scrtrces of Collineauiry. New York: Wiley &. Sons, 1980.
BENSON, 11. O., "A Comparison of T w o Approaches to Pure-Inertial and Doppler-Inertial
Error Analysis," IEEE Trans. .ierospacr arid Electrotrir Systerns, vol. AES-11, July 1975, pp.
447-455.
3,
BESNER, E. ANI) J. SHINAR, "Optimal Evasive Maneuvers in Conditions of Uncertainty,
Rept. TAE-392, 13ecember 1979.
BIIATTACHARYYA, S. P., Roblist Stabilizatiotr A~qairlsr Str~tctuvedPerturbatiorrs. New York:
Springer-Vcrlag, 1987.
BIERMAN, G. J.. Computational Asperrs ofDiscrerc Sequential Esrii~iation.New York: Academic
Press, 1977. (Available as JPL Rept. 900-661)
BIERMAN, G. J. A N D M . W. NEAII,A Par.a~iieterEstimation Subrouririe Package, JPL Publication
77-26, Revision 2, Pasadena, CA: Calif. Inst. of Tech., 1978.
BISPLINGHOF, R. L., H. ASHLEY, A N D R. L. HALFMAN, Aeroelasriciry. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley, 1953.
BLANK, R. W. AND W. D. RHOUES,"Field Test Results Prove GPS Performance and Utility,''
IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Sysrems A4ogazirle, vol. 3, no. 6, June 1988, p. 11.
BLOM,H.A.P. AND Y. BAR-SHALOM, "The Interacting Multiple Model Algorithm for Sys-
tems with Markovian Switching Coefficients," lEEE Trans. Ailto. Control, vol. AC-21,
1988, p. 780.
BOGGESS,R. L., "Avionics Systeills Engineering-An Overview," UCLA Dept. of Engi-
neering and Science Short Course Progranls, Engineering 867.12, Section 1, July 1986.
BOHN,P. F., "Radio Frequency Test Facility for Evaluation of Missile Hardware," Summer
Coinprrrcr Sir~~~rlafiotl Cot$, July 1983, pp. 878-881.
BOONE,B. G.. "Signal Enhancen~entand Target Classification," JHUlAPL lRGD Site Re-
vicuj, March 8. 1988.
BOONE,B. G. A N D R. A. STEINBERG, "Signal Processing for Missile Guidance: Prospects for
the Future." Johtls Hopkitis APL TerIli1ical D$esr, vol. 9, no. 3, 1988, pp. 269-275.
BOOTON,R. C.. ''An Analysis of Nonlinear Control Systetns with Random Inputs," Po-
lytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. Microwave Research Institute, Symposium Series, 2, Proc.
of tile Syrnposirrr~i011 . ~ o f ~ / i t ~Cirrlrir
e a r Analysis, 1953, pp. 369-391.
BOSSI, J. A. A N D M. A. LANGEHOUGH, L L M ~ l t i ~ a r i aAutopilot
ble Designs for a Bank-to-Turn
Missile," Pror. Arrrericar~Corlrrol Corrf, 1988, pp. 567-572.
BOYKIN, W. H. A N D W. E. JORDAN,"Cannon Launched Guided Projectiles Simulation and
Comparative Analyses of Guidance and Control Altcrnati\.es," Rept. No. RG-TR-71-11,
August 1971.
BREAKWELL, J. V.. J. L. SI'EYEII, A N D A. E. BRYSON, 'LOptinli~atio~l and C o ~ ~ t rofNonlinear
ol
System Using Second Variation." SIAM J. o-f Cortrrol, 1 , no. 2, January-February 1963,
pp. 193-223.
BIIEZA,M. J. A N D A. E. BRYSON, "Minimum-Variance Steady-State Filters with Eigenvalue
Constraints," Proc. 5th Symp. on Sonli~iearEstimatiot~,September 1974.
BRITTING, K . R.. It~rrtialNavigariorl Systerns Arialysis. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1971.
BROXMEYE CI. ~. Inrrtial
. Ab~)igariorrSysrerns. New York: McGra\v-Hill, 1964.
BIIYSON. A . E., "New Concepts in Control Theory." J. Glrid., Co~rrrnl,orrd Dyrlamirs, vol.
8, no. 4. July-Augt~st 1985, pp. 417-413.
BIIYSON. A. E., "Ka1111a11 Filtcr Ili\~crgcnccand Aircraft Motion Estimation," J. Cuid. arid
Cot~frcll.vol. 1. no. 1, January-Fcbruary 1978, pp. 71-79.
BIIYSON.A . E., ET AL.."LQG Cor~trollerDcsigtl for ilobustncss." Pror. Arncricat~Corlfrol
Cor!f, June IYXO.
HIIYSON,A . E. A N I ) Y . C . Ho, .4pplic.d Optitttal Cont1.~11. Walthan~.MA: Blaisdell I'ublishing
Co., 1Yh9. (2nd cd. published by Halstcd I'ress. 1075)
HUC<:IILI.I~. I ) . A N I ) M. FOSS,"lntcgratiot~of GI's and Strapdown Incrtial Subsystcn~sinto
a Single Unit." Na~,i.gntior~: Jnirrtial of r l ~ eir~srir~trrc!fN'lc~iptiot~,vol. 34, no. 2, Sumil~cr
1987.
BULLOCK, T. E. AN!) S. SANGSUK-IAM, "Optimal Evasive Ma~lcuvcrDetection," AFATL-
TR-84-03, January 1984.
BYE,C . T. A N D J . T . BAKKEN, "An Advanced Flight Control and Navigation System Im-
plenlcntation for Tactical Helicopters." I E E E Amispace arid Electro~~ic Systems Mqyurine,
vol. 3, no. 7, July 1988, pp. 27-33.
BYE,C . T., J. T. UAKKEN, ANL) S. SNYDEII. "A Modular Flight Control and Navigation
System for the Next Generation of Arrny Aviation," 1986 A H S Cor!ferencc Proceedings,
June 2-4, 1986.
CALISE,A. J. A N D S. S#MITII. "Optimal Pulse Motor Control," AIAA papcr No. 81-1509,
1982.
C A U G I I L ID.
N ,J. A N I ) T . E. BULLOCK, "Reachable Sct Control for I'referrcd Axis Homing
Missiles," Ameri~~rrr Cotltrol C o r f : , June 1988.
CAUGHLIN, D. 1. A N D T . E. BULLOCK, "Bank-~O-TUTII c01lt~01," ri~nericarrCollfI"l/ COI$,
June 1981, pp. 1460-1407.
CHAN,Y. T . , ET AL.. "A Kalman Filter Based Tracking Scheme with Input Estimation,"
I E E E Tratu. on Aero. atrd Electr. Sys., vol. AES-15, no. 2, March 1979, pp. 237-244.
CHANG,C. B. A N D M. A T ~ I A N"State S. Estimation for Discrete Systems with Switching
Parameters," I E E E Trans. on Aerospace ntrd Electrorric Systerns, vol. AES-14, May 1978, pp.
418-421.
CHEN.M . J . A N D C . A. DESOER. "Necessary 2nd Sufficient Condition for Robust Stability
of Linear Distributed Feedback Systems," Preprint, Electrorlics Research Lab., U C Berke-
ley, 1981.
CHENG,V. H. L. A N D N . K. GCPTA,"Advanced Midcourse Guidance for Air-to-Air Mis-
siles," J . of Guidance and Control, vol. 9, no. 2, March-April 1986, pp. 135-142.
CHENG,V. H . L., P. K. A. MEKON,N . K. GUI'TA,A N D M. M. BRIGCS,"Reduced-Order
Pulse-Motor Ignition Control Logic," A I A A J . Guidance, Corltrol and Dynamics, vol. 10,
no. 4, July-August 1987, pp. 343-350.
CHERRY, G. H., "E Guidance: A Universal, Explicit, Optimizing Guidance Law for Rocket-
Propelled Flight," Paper N o . 6+638, A I A A / I O N Astrodynamics, Guidance and Control Con-
ference, August 1964.
CHRISTAL, W. H. A N D D. G. MACKEY, "Guidance and Control Simulations for Laser Guided
Weapons," Proc. Aerospace Simrrlation, February 1984, pp. 171-181.
CLEMOW, J., Missile Guidance. London: Temple Press Unlimited, 1960.
CLOUTIER, J. R., personal communication, 1990.
CLOUTIER, J. R., J. H. EVERS,A N D J. J. FEELEY,"Assessment of Air-to-Air Missile Guidance
and Control Technology," I E E E Control Systems ,Vlagazirle, October 1989, pp. 27-34.
CLOUTIER, J. R., J. H. EVERS,A N D J. J. FEELEY,
"An Assessment of Air-to-Air Missile Guid-
ance and Control Technology," Proc. American Control Con$., June 1988, pp. 133-112.
COOK,F. J. A N D J. E. BERGESON, "The Reconstruction/Refiltering Approach to Kalmari filter
Evaluation," Proc. N A E C O N . 1980.
COTTRELL, R. G., "Optimal Intercept Guidance for Short-Range Tactical Missile," ,iI.-1A
Journal, vol. 9, no. 7, July 1971, pp. 1414-1415.
CRUZ,J. B. A N D W. R. PERKINS. "A New Approach to the Sensitivity Problem in Multi-
variable Feedback Design," I E E E Trans. Auto. Corltrol, 1964, pp. 216-223.
CUNNINGHAM, P. P., "Lambda Matrix Terminal Control for Missile Guidance," jolrrnal o f
Spacecrqfi and Rockets, January 1968, pp. 119-121.
D'APPOLITO,J. A., "The Evaluation of Kalmaii Filter Designs for Multisensor Integrated
Navigation Systems," TASC Tech. Rept. TR-183-1, Reading, MA: January 1971.
DAILEY, R. L. A N D M . S. LUKICH, "Recent Results in Identification and Control of a Flexible
Truss Structure," American Corzrrol C o n j , Julie 1988, pp. 1468-1473.
DEAN,F. A,, "The Talos Missile," johns Hopkins i i P L Tecl~tlicalDigest, vol. 3, no. 2, April-
June 1982, p. 115.
D E GASTON, R. E., "Nonconservative Calculatioil of the Multiloop Stability Margin," Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Southern Calif., 1985.
D E GASTON,R. E. A N D M. G. S.~FONOV, "Exact Calculation of the Multiloop Stability
Margin," IEEE Trans. Auto. Cot~trol,vol. AC-33, 1988, pp. 156-171.
DEITCHMAN, S. J., "Exploiting the Re\~olutionin Conventional Weapons," Aevospace .4n1erica,
June 1987, pp. 34-37.
DEMETRY, J . S. A N D H. A. TITUS,"Adaptive Tracking of Maneuvering Targets," Naval
Postgraduate School, NPS-52DE8041A, April 1968.
DENARVO, R. A N D P. LOOMIS, "GPS Navigation Processing and Kalman Filtering," AGARD-
LS-161, September 1988.
D~rrusso,p. M., R. R. ROY, A N D C . M. CLOSE,Srate Variables.for Er\gir~cers. New York:
Wilcy, 1970.
DESOER,C . A,, R. W . Llu, J. MCRRAY, A N D R. SAEKS,"Feedback Systcni Design: The
Fractional Representation Approach," l E E E Tratrs. Alrro. Coritrol, vol. AC-25, 1980, pp.
399-412.
DESOEII. C . A. ANI) M. VII>YASAC;AI~, Fccdback Sysrons: Irrpur-Orrtptrr Properties. New York:
Academic Press, 1975.
l>~c~so.;.R. E. A N I ) V. C A I I H E"Optimuni
I~, Rendezvous, Intercept and l~~jcction," .41AA
jo~rrr~fll,July 1969. pp. 14fJ2-14fl3.
DONATEI.I.I, G. A. A N L ) E. L. FLEEMAN, "Methodology for Predicting Miss 13istatice for Air
Launched Missiles," AlAA 20th Acrospace Sciences Meeting, January 1982.
Doslr. M. K . A N D M. D . YAKOS,"GI'S/INS Integration Using Decouplcd Residual Data,"
I O N National Technical Meeting, January 1986.
DOWI>LE, J. R., "An Optin~alGuidance Law for Supersonic Sea Skimming," I'apcr No. 85-
1866, A I A A C ~ r i d .Nav.
, arld Corrtrol Cot!L, August 1985, pp. 165-169.
I)~wI>L 1. FIt.,
. . M. ATIIANS, S. W. GULLY,ANI) A. S. WILLSKY, "An Optitnal Control and
Estinlation Algorirhn~for Missilc Endgamc Guidancc." IEEE Cor!f: or) D r ~ i ~ i oatrd i r Cor!rr.ol.
1)cccmber 1982. pp. 1128-1 1.12.
DOU~I)LII, J . R.. S. W. GULLY, A N I ) A. S. WILLSKY, "Endgan~cGuidancc S t ~ d y , "AFATL-
TI<-83-38, April 1983.
Dou/i)~.r..J. I l . A N D 1'. KIM,"Bandwidth Ilequirenicnts for Sca S k i n i n ~ i ~Guidancc," lg Paper
No. 85-1 867, A l A . 4 Clrid., .Yfll,. atld Cotrtrol C O I ! ~August
. 1985, pp. 170-175.
I ~ O Y LJE. ,C., Lccture Notcs, O , Y J I / H ~ ~ t r r ) ~ ull'orksl~op
~ell 011 Advarrrrs i r ~A41tltirstriablr Cof~rvol,
Minneapolis. M N : Octobrr 1984.
I3ov1I . J . C.. "Analysis of IZc.cdbackSystcnls with Structured Unccrtaintics," Pro(. Ik'li,
I'art I). 120, 1'982. pp. 242-231.
 I > ~ Y L I :J. . C., "Synthcsis of Robust Controllers and Filters." Proc, oj'the Ztrd lEEE Conferenre
rlrl 13i*cisiot1'tnd Cnntrol, I)eccn~bcr 1983, pp. 109-1 14.

I>OYI.E, J. C.. ET A I... "I'crforn~a~ic~ and Ilobustncss A~ialysiswith Structured Uncertainty."

21st I E E E C l > C , llcccn~bcr1082, pp. 63-636.
I ~ O Y L EJ. . C. A N I ) K . GLOVER,"State Spacc Formulae for All Stabilizing Controllers That
Satisfy a n H, Norm Bound and Relations to Risk Smsitivity." Systetns nnd Control Letters,
Octobcr 1988.
I ~ ~ Y L 1. E , C . . K . (;LOVEII, 1'. K~IAII(~ONEKAII, ANI) B. FIIANCIS, "State-Space SOluti01lS to
Standard H2 and 14, Control l~roblcms,"Proc. Amrricarr Cantrrll Car$,Junc 1988. pp. 1691-
1690.
I ~ O Y L E , J. C . . K . LENZ, AN[) A. I'.X:KAIIII, "Dcsigil E X ~ I I I ~ I Using
CS p-Synthesis: Space
Shuttle Latcral Axis FCS I2tlring Reentry." Proc. o f t h e I E E E CorlfErrtrce otr Decision ntrd
Cotrrrol, 1986.
I ~ O Y L EJ, . C. .\NO G. STEIN,"Multivariable Fredback Design: Concepts for a Classi-
cal/Modcrn Synthesis." I E E E Trans. Arrfo. Cotrtrol, vol. AC-26, no. 1, February 1981, pp.
4-16.
I ~ O Y L E .J. C. A N I I G. STEIN,"Ilobustt~~ss with Observers," Proc. I E E E CDC. December
1978, p p 1-6.
DOYLE,J . C . AQI) G. STEIN,"Singular Values and Feedback: Design Examples," d411ertorr
Co1!/: on C~~rnrrrrrr~ic~~tiorr,., C~~rrrl-~il,
atld Co~~~pririrry,
1978.
I ~ R A I ' E I I , C. S., "Origins of Inertial Navigation," 1.Grrid'71tce clrrd Cotrrrol, vol. 4, 1981, pp.
449-463.
I ~ R A I J E RN, . A N D H. SMITH, '4pplied Reyresriorr .4tinlyris, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1981.
DIIEYFUS, S. E. AN[> J. R. ELLIOTT, "An Optimal Linear Feedback Guidance Scheme," 1.
.Clntlr. Atlnl. Appl., vol. 8, 1964, pp. 364-386.
DVIIIEUX, j. L., "Terminal Control [or Command to Line of Sight Guided Missile,"
AGARD-LS-135. May 1984, pp. 4-1 to 4-14.
EASAM, "The Method of Adjoint System and Its Application to Guided Missile Noise
Studies," Camberley, England, NTIS Rept. PB186191, 1969.
J EAST,D. J.. "Some Aspects of Guidance Loop Design for SAM Systems," AGARD-LS-
135, May 1984, pp. 3-1 to 3-14.
EBNEII,R. E. A N D S. Y. WEI, "Integrated Flight Control/Navigation Sensors," AIAA paper
N o . 84-26'3. Sixth Diyital Avionics Conference, December 1984, pp. 116-123.
EMMERT,R. I., ET AL., "Detailed Stability and Control Iilvestigation of a Bank-to-Turn
Configuration," AFATL-TR-78-10, Air Force Armament Laboratory, Eglin AFB, January
,1978.
ENNS,D. F., "Multivariable Control for an Attack Helicopter," Proc. of the Americart Control
Conjltvet~cr.J u n e 1986, p. 858.
EVEIIS,J. H., J. R. CLOUTIER, A N D F. ZUI~ANCLC, "Optimal Guidance Law in~plementation
Issues," Proc. ;Itrrrricat~Control Cot$, June 1988.
FAN,M. K. H. A N D J. H. Fu, "On Block Limiting Norm and Structured Singular Value,"
Systerrts and Cotrtrol Letter, vol. 12, no. 1, 1989.
F A N , M. K. H . A N I ) A. TITS,"Toward a Structured Singular Values," Pruc. 26th I E E E C D C ,
Dectmbrr 1987.
 FAN,M. K. H. AND A. TITS,"Characterization and Efficient Computation of the Structured
Singular Value," IEEE Trans. Auto. Control, ool. AC-31, 1986, pp. 734-743.
J FARUGI,F. A. A N D R. C. DAVIS,"Kalman Filter Design for Target Tracking," IEEE Trans.
on Aerospace and Electronics Systems, AES-16, no. 4, July 1980, 500-508. Corrections appear
in AES-16, no. 5, September 1980, p. 240.
FEINTUCH, A. AND B. A. FRANCIS, "Uniformly Optimal Control of Linear Feedback Sys-
tems," Automatics, vol. 21, no. 5, 1985, pp. 563-574.
FINGEROTE, S. I., D. B. REID,D. F. LIANG,L. VALLOT, C. GREENE, A N D J. MAHESH,"Con-
figuration Design of a Helicopter Integrated Navigation System," AGARD-CP-411, 1987.
FISKE,P. H., "Advanced Digital Guidance and Control Concepts for Air-to-Air Missiles,"
AFATL-TR-77-130. December 1977.
FITTS,J. M., "Aided Tracking as Applied to High Accuracy Pointing Systems," IEEE Trans.
Aero. and Elec. S y s . , vol. AES-10, no. 3, May 1974, pp. 350-368.
FITZGERALU, K., "Probing Boeing's Crossed Connections," IEEE Spectrum, May 1989, pp.
30-35.
J F I ~ G E R A L D , R. J. A N D P. ZARCHAN, "Shaping Filters for Randomly Initiated Target Ma-
neuvers," Proc. A I A A Guid. G Control C o n i , August 1978, pp. 424-430.
FLEMING, R., "Kalman Filtering Applied to a Modern System for CLOS Guidance," Internal
Report, Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Belfast: Queen's University. 1984.
FLEMING, W. H., (Chairman), Future Directions in Coritrol Tl~eory:A A4athernatical Perspective,
SIAM Rept. on Issues in the Mathematical Sciences, 1988.
FORTE,I. A N D J. SHINAR, "Application of the Mixed Guidance Strategy in 3D," American
Control C o r t f , June 1988.
FORTE,I. A N D J. SUINAR, "Improved Guidance Law Design Based on the Mixed Strategy
Concept," Proc. . 4 1 A A G N C C o r ! f , vol. 1, August 1987, pp. 579-586.
FORTESCUE, P. W., "Pitch/Yaw Coupling Due to Roll of an Axisyn~metricMissile with
Autopilot," Aerortntctical Quarrerly, May 1982, pp. 124-139.
FOSSIER, M. W., "De\~elopmentof Low-Altitude Air Defense Systems." J. Guidattce, Corttrol,
a ~ t dDyrtamics, vol. 11, no. 2, March-April 1988, pp. 97-102.
FOSSIER, M. W., "The Development of Radar Homing Missiles," J. Guidartce, Cotttrol, and
Dynamics, vol. 7, no. 6, November-December 1984, pp. 641-651.
FOSSIER, M. W., "Tactical Missile Guidance at Raytheon," Electrottic Progress, Raytheon Co.,
Fall 1980.
FOSSIER, M. W. AND B. A. HALL."Fu~~damentals of Homing Guidance," Raytheon Co.,
July 19, 1967.
FRANCIS. R. C. A N D J. R. MITCHELL. "The Implementatiot~of an Advanced Navigation and
Guidance Law Using Kalman Filters," IEEE Southeastco~t '83 Proccedir~qs,April 1983, pp.
330-334.
FRANKLIN, G. F., ET AL.,Feedback Cntttrol ojDynamic Systetrts. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
1986.
FRASER, D. C., "Guidance and Control of Short-Rangc Tactical Missiles," 1. Guida~tcrand
Cor~trol,vol. 4, no. 2, March-April 1981, p. 97.
FIIIEDLANI), B.. "Treatment of Bias in Recursive Filtering," IEEE Trans. Auto. Corttrol. \.ol.
14, 1969. pp. 359-367.
 FULLEII. J. W. A N I I C. GREGOIIY, "Target Tracking Algorithn~sfor Advanced Guidance
Laws." AFATL-TR-80-144, December 1080.
G A I ~ ~U.wS.. , ET A L . . "Matrix Eigensystem Routines-EISPACK Guide Extension," Lec-
ture Notes i r ~Cornptcter Scierlce 51, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1977.
GARNELL, I)., Cltided Weapott Cotttrol Sysrern. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980.
GARNELL, 1'. A N D 11. J. EAST,Glrided Weaport Cor~rrolSystems. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977.
G A I ~ T EW. N , A N D F. A. D E A N"Evolution
, ofthe Talos Missile," Johns Hopkins APL Technical
Di,qcst, vol. 3, no. 2, April-June 1982, pp. 117-122.
GASI~AIIOVIO, R. F.. "Airborne Measurements of Sca Surface Temperature Variability with
a Two-Wavelength Infrared Radiometer," American Geophysical Union Meeting, Phil-
adclphia, PA. June 1982.
GELB,A., ed., Applied Optimal Estimatiorl. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1974.
GELB,A. A N D W. E. VANDER VELDE, .Clliltiple-1r1p11tDescribir~qFritrcrions and Sonliriear Systems
Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1968.
GELU,A. A N D R. S. WARREN, "Direct Statistical Analysis of Nonlinear Systems-CADET,"
AIAA Journal, vol. 11, May 1973, pp. 689-694.
G E M I N Y.,
, "Polynomial Approximations in Perturbational Navigation and Guidance
Schemes," in B. F. De Veubcke, ed., Advanced Problems artd lL1ethodsfor Spaceflight Optirn-
izatiorr. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1969, pp. 13-24.
4 GIIOLSON, N. H. A N D R. L. MOOSE."Maneuvering Target Tracking Using Adaptive State
Estimation," IEEE Trnrls. Aerosp, and Electronic Systems, vol. AES-13, no. 3, May 1977.
pp. 310-317.
GIESEKINC, D . L., J. H . SIMPSON. A N D J. W. OESTREICH, "Analysis of Air-to-Air Missile
Requirements and Weapon Systems Effectiveness in an Air-Combat Maneuvering Envi-
ronment," AGARD-CP-198, October 1975, pp. 22-1 to 72-10.
GILBERT, W. C., "An Improved Approach to the Adjoint Method Applied to the Statistical
Analysis of a Homing Missile," Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL, Ad-
vanced Sensors Lab., RE-TR-67-8, August 22, 1967.
GILBERT, W. H. A N D C. F. LIN, "New Missile Guidance and Control Technology," panel
discussion, Proc. American Corltrol Conf., vol. 2, June 1984, p. 751.
GILBERT, W. H., F. W. NESLINE, AND C. F. LIN,"New Missile Guidance and Control Tech-
nology Panel Discussion," Proc. 1985 American Corttrol Conf; p. 345.
GIRAGOSIAN, P. A , , "Critical Aerodynamic Technology Issues in Air-to-Air Missile Design,"
AIAA 17th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 1979.
GIRARD,D. D., "Nonlinear Flutters Analysis of a Missile FinIActuator," Proc. American
Control Conference, June 1986, pp. 1137-1142.
GLASSON, D. P., "Modern Guidance for Beyond Visual Range Missiles," presented at the
American Control Conference, June 1984.
GLASSON, D. P. AND G. L. MEALY,"Optimal Guidance for Beyond Visual Range Missiles-
Volume 1," AFATL-TR-83-89, November 1983.
GONZALEZ, J. M., "New Methods in the Terminal Guidance and Control of Tactical Mis-
siles," Proc. ofhhtiotlal Aerosynce and Electronics Conference, 1979(a), pp. 350-361.
GONZALEZ, J. M . , "New Methods in Terminal Guidance and Control of Tactical Missiles,"
AGARD-LS-101, 1979(b), pp. 3-1 to 3-23.
GOODSTEIN, R, "Development of Control System Requirements," AGARD-LS-52, May
1972(a).
GOODSTEIN, R., "Guidance Law Applicability for Missile Closing," AGARD-LS-52, May
1972(b).
Goss, W. H., "Talos in Retrospect,'yohns Hopkins APL Techt~icalDigest, vol. 3, no. 2, April-
June 1982, p. 116.
GREENWELL, W . M., ET AL., "Adaptive Noise Estimation and Guidance for Homing Mis-
siles," AFATL-TR-82-66, September 1982.
GULICK, J . , W. C . HYATT,A N D 0 . M. MARTIN. "The Talos Guidance Systein,"Jo/zns Hopkins
APL Techrrical Digest, vol. 3, no. 2, 1982.
GUNSTON, B.. Rockets and Missiles. London: Salamander Books Ltd., 1979.
HAEUSSERMANN, W., "Developments in the Field of Automatic Guidance and Control Rock-
ets," J. Cuidartce arid Control, vol. 4, no. 3, May-June 1981, pp. 225-239.
HALL,K. R., "De\~elopmentand Comparison of Estimation Algorithms for Airborne Mis-
siles," AFATL-TR-83-14, February 1983.
HAMMERSLEY. H. M. A N D D. C . HANDSCOMB, h4onte Carlo A4ethods. Great Britain: Fletcher
and Sons Ltd., 1964.
HARDY,F. W., "Air-to-Surface Missile System Guidance and Control Technology," UCLA
Dept. of Engineering and Science Short Course Programs, Engineering 839-19, April 1986.
HARMON, G. L., K. E. KENT,A N I > W. P. PURCELL, LLOptinlal Bang-Bang Guidance Systen~,"
Paper No. 19.1. Western Electric Show and Convention, Part 5, 1962.
HASSENPFLUG, W. A N D M. BAUMKER, "Navigation Systenls for the New Generation of Com-
bat and Transport Helicopters and Associated Flight Tests," AGARD-CP-411, 1987.
HAYMAN, J., "Design and Sin~ulationof an Intelligent Missile Seeker," AGARD-CP-321,
January 1983.
HEASTON, R. J . .ANI> C . W. SMOOTS,lirtrodlrctior~to P~.~risiorr Cnidrd Allrrririorrs. Chicaso. IL:
GACIAC HB-83-01, Prepared by the Tactical Weapon Guidance and Control Iiiforn~arion
Analysis Center (GACIAC) under Contract DLA900-80-C-2855 with the 1)efensc Logistics
Agency. May 1983.
3 3
HELLER, B. J., "Adapting an Alpha-Beta Tracker in a Maneuvering Target Environment,
U.S. Naval Weapons Center, Tech. Note 304-154, July 1967.
HELLER,W. G., "Models for Aided Inertial Navigation System Sensor Errors," Reading,
MA: TASC Tech. Rept. TR-313-3, February 1975.
HEWEII,G. A , , ET AL.,"A State-Space Theory of Structurcd Uncertainty with Examples.
..
N W C TI' 6971. China Lake. CA: Naval Weapons Ccntcr, March 1989.
HEWEII. G. A,. I<. KLAIIVNI)E, A N I ) C . KENNEY, "A S t r ~ c t ~ i r eSingular
d Value Approach to
Missile Autopilot Analysis," S C S Aerospace S i n ~ ~ r l ~ t 198X(a).ir~r~,
HEWEII, G. A , , R. KI.AIIUNI>E. A N I ) C . KENNEY, "A Structured Sil~gularValuc Approach to
Missile Autopilot Ailalysis 11," Proc. 1988 Atnericarr Cot~rrolCon[, June 1988(b), pp. 323-
327.
H E W E IG.~ , A,, C. KENNEY, A N I ) R. K L A I I U N I"A
~ E State
, Space Model of Structurcd Singular
Valucs," 27th IEEE Con[ otr Dcrisiotl atrd Control. IJcccrnbcr 1088(c), pp. 2144-2147.
HILBOIIN. C. G. A N I ) 1). G . L A I N I O . ~"Optinla1
IS, Estimation in I'resencc of Unkno\\.n I'd-
.,
ramcters. 'I'rans. S)$sr.Sti. Cyhn.n., vol. SSC-5. January lYh9, pp. 38-43.
HINI~I(:IISEN, I). AN!> A. J. PI<ITCI{ARI>, "Stability Radii of Lincar Systems," Systems and
C~vlrrolLrtt., vol. 7, 1080, pp. 1-10.
HIIIOSIII~;E. K., "Surface-to-Air Missile and Armamcnt Systctiis Guidance and Control Sys-
tems and Technology." G~rid~tnce arld Control &'or Tdrlicdi Aircrofi, l~lissiles,and Arrnarnent
Syitr,~ns.UCLA 1)ept. of E ~ ~ g i t ~ c c rand
i n g Scicllcc Short Coursc l'rograms. Engineering
839-10. April 1983-1986.
H o , Y.-C., "Editorial-Basic Research. Manufacturing Automation, and Putting the Cart
Before the Horse," IEEE Tratnj. .?rrto. Cot~trol,vol. AC-33, no. 13, I>ccen~ber1987, pp.
1047-1043.
Ho. Y.-C., A. E. BIIYSON, A N D S. B.\IION. "1)iffcrcntial Games a ~ l dOptinla1 Pursuit-Evasion
Strategies," IEEE 7'rotrs. air Atttorrrtttir Corrtrol, October 1965, pp. 385-380.
HOEIIL,A. A N I ) R. KENNAIII), "Ridge Rcgrcssion & Bias Estimation for Nonorthogonal
.
Problen~s, redrno~nrtrics,vol. 12, no. 1, February 1970.
9,

H o ~ t ,R. H., ET AL., "Proposed Airworthiness Design Standard: Handling Qualities Re-
quirements for Military Rotorcraft," Systems Technology Inc. TR-1194-3, December
1985.
HOISIN(;TON, I)., "Ful~damentalJamming Relationships," Intertr~tiorralCotiniertneasrtres Hand-
book, 1981.
HOLI)ER. I). W., "Simulation ill h.lissile Concept For111~lation."1984 SCSC, pp. 269-772.
HOLOEILD. W., " S ~ n ~ u l a t i o~~IiI.Missile Technology Feasibility Demonstration." 1983
SCSC, pp. 301-305.
HORN,R. A. ANL) C. R. JOIINSON. .\ldtrix Atralysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1985.
HOWE,R. M., Systrrn E~~gineering Hltttiih~ok,ed. R. E. Machol. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1965.
Hsti. F. K., ET A L . , "Decoupling Control of a B T T Missile by Eigenstructure Assignment,"
Proc. IEEE C D C , December 1987.
Hsc, J. C. A N D A. U. MEYEII,.\.lod~'r~t Co11tr01Pritrciplej and Applicatio~ls.New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1968.
HULL,D. G., P. C. KITE, A N D J. L. SPEYER, "New Target Models for Homing Missile
Guidance," Proc. AIAA Gtiidar~ieand Control Conjirewce, August 1983.
HULL,D. G . , J. L. SPEYER, A N D D. B. BURRIS, "A Linear-Quadratic Guidance Law for Dual
Control of Homing Missiles," AIAA Guid., Nav., and Control Conf., August 1987.
HULL,D . G., J. L. SPEYER, A N D C. Y. TSENG, "Maximum-Information Guidance for Homing
Missiles," J. Guid., Cotrt., and Dynamics, vol. 8, no. 4, July-August 1985, pp. 494-497.
HELL,D. G., J. L. SI'EYER, C. Y. TSENG,A N D S. LARSEN, "Maximum Information Trajec-
tories for Homing Missiles," AFATL-TR-81-97, November 1981.
HUTCHINSON, C. E., "An Error Analysis Technique for Inertial Navigation Systems and
Kalman Filters," NTIS AD-674-526, September 1968.
IEEE, "The Role and Use of the Stochastic Linear-Quadratic-Gaussian Problem in Control
System Design," IEEE Trans. .-ittromatir Cowtuol, vol. AC-16, December 1971, pp. 329-
552.
IRWIN,G. W., "Design of Controllers for Bank-to-Turn CLOS Guidance Using Optimal
Control," Proc. American C o ~ ~ r rCot$,
~ d June 1986, pp. 1143-1148.
IVANOV,A., "Radar Guidance of Missiles," Proc. IEEE Intematiorlal Corlference, 1975, pp.
321-335.
JANKOVITZ, J., ET AL.,"Joint Development of the Multi-Function Integrated Inertial Sensor
Assembly (MIISA)," AGARD-CP-411, 1987.
JAZWJNSKI, A. H., Stochastic Processes and Filtering Theory. New York: Academic Press, 1970.
JERGER, J. J . , Systems Preliminary Design. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1960.
JONSSON,H. 0 . A N D G. MALMBERG, "Optimal Thrust Vector Control for Vertical Launch
of Tactical Missiles," J. Guidance and Coi~trol,~ o l 5,. no. 1, January-February 1982, p. 17.
Joos, D. K. A N D U. K. KROGMANN, "Identification and Determination of Strapdown Error-
Parameters by Laboratory Testing," AGARD-AG-254, April 1981.
JORGENSEN, P., "NAVSTARIGlobal Positioning System 18-Satellite Constellations," I O N
GPS paper, YO]. 111, 1984.
KAIN,J. E., "Directed-Miss Guidance for Roll-Pointing of Undirectional Warheads," AIAA
paper No. 81-1759, 1981.
KAIN,J. E. A N D J. R. CLOUTIER, "Rapid Transfer Alignment for Tactical Weapon Appli-
cations," Paper No. 89-3581, AIAA G N C Cot$, August 1989.
KAIN,J. E. A N D D. J. YOST, "Command to Line-of-Sight Guidance: A Stochastic Optimal
Control Problem," Proc. ofthe AIAA Gtridattce and Corttrol Coitference, 1976, pp. 356-364.
KALATA,P. R.. "The Tracking Index: A Generalized Parameter for Alpha-Beta-Gamma
Target Trackers," IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Elecrroiiic Sysrerns, vol. AES-20, March 1984, pp.
174-182.
KALMAN, R. E., "A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems," ASME
1.of Basic Enginerring, vol. 82. 1960, pp. 35-45.
9 9
KALMAN, R. E. A N D R. S. BUCY,"New Results in Linear Filtering and Prediction Theory,
ASME J. of Basic Engirtrering, vol. 83, 1961, pp. 95-108.
KAMEN,E. W.. ET AL., "Adaptive Control Applied to Missile Autopilots," Proc. America11
Cotirrol Cor!f.. June 1988, pp. 555-560.
KAMINSKI, P. G.. A. E. BRYSON,A N D J. F. SCHMIDT, "Discrete Square Root Filtering: A
Survey of Current Techniques," IEEE Trans. Auro. Control, vol. AC-16, 1971, pp. 727-
736.
KATZIR,S., E.M. CLIFF,AND H. J . KELLEY, "Best-Range Study for a Boost-Sustain Missile,"
Proc. American Control Con{, 1988, pp. 155-159.
KATZIR,S., E. M. CLIFF,A N D F. H. LUTZE,"An Approach to Near Optimal Guidance On-
Board Calculations," IEEE ICCOA', April 1989.
33
KAY, C. J., "A Prototype Fibre Optic Gyroscopc for Missile Guidance Applications,
AGARD-CP-431. 1987.
KELLEY, H. J.. "A Transformation Approach to Singular Subarcs in Optimal Trajcctory and
Col~trolProblcms," SIAM J. nf Cotrrrol, vol. 2, 1904(a), pp. 234-240.
KELLEY, H. J., "All Optimal Guidancc Approximation Theory," IEEE Trails. Auto. Coclfrol,
vol. 9, no. 4, 1964(b), pp. 370-380.
KELLEY, H. J., "Guidance Theory and Extremal Fields." IRE Trans. Alito. Cottrrol, vol. 7,
no. 5, 1962, pp. 75-82.
KELI.EY, H. J. A N [ ) K . WELL,"An Approach to lntcrccpt On-Board Calculations," Optinl-
ization lncorporatcdll>FVLR Mernorandum, September 1980; an updated version appears
in Pror. ~ f t l l .4CC,
r IEEE, 1983, pp. 7C)Y-8(XJ.
KELLY.J. R., ET AL.,"Flight Investigation of Manual and Automatic VTOL Decelerating
Instrument Approaches and Landings," NASA T N 11-7524. July 1974.
KELLY,R. J., "Reducing Geometric Dilution of Precision Using Ridge Regression," IEEE
Trans. Acro. 'rnd Elec. Syst., vol. AES-26, no. 1, January 1990, pp. 154-168.
KELLY,R. J . , "Global Positioning System Accuracy Improvement Using Ridge Regression,"
Paper No. 89-3499, AIAA CNC Cotrj, August 1989.
J. I)., P. S. MAYUECK.
KENI>RICK, AN11 J. G. REID,"Estimation of Aircraft Target Motion
Using Orientation Mcasuremcnts," IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electronic Systetns, vol. AES-17,
no. 2. March 1981, pp. 254-260.
KI.\~.Y. S., H. S. CHO, A N I ) Z. BIEN."A New Guidance Law for Homing Missiles," J.
Cuid. and Corrtrol, vol. 8, no. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 402-404.
A , "Robust Stabilization for a Class of Transfer Functions," IEEE Trans. Auto.
K I . L ~ U RH.,
Corrr., vol. AC-39, September 1984, pp. 788-793.
KIRK,I). E., Optirnal Cotrrrol Theory: 4 n Introdtrctiotr. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Electrical Engineering Series, 1970.
KLABUNDE, R. R., "A State Space Approach to Body Bending Compensation for Missile
Autopilot Design." Proc. Ameriratr Control ConJ, June 1985, pp. 341-344.
KNIGHT,D. T., "GPS Integration with Low-Cost Inertial Navigation Unit." I O N Satellite
Div. Conf., Scptcmber 21-25, 1987.
KOELLE, H. H., Handbook ~JAstm~rarrtical Enyirreeritrg. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1961.
KOLIBABA, R. L. A N D R. B. ASHER."Adaptive Filtering for Precision Pointing and Tracking
Problems in Weapon Delivery," AFAL-TR-73-320, WPAFB, Ohio, January 1974.
KOLODZ~EJ, W. J. A N D R. R. MOHLER, "Analysis of a New Nonlinear Filter and Tracking
Methodology," IEEE Trarrs. 1116.Theory., vol. IT-30, no. 4, July 1984, pp. 677-681.
KORTCM,W., "Design and Analysis of Low-Order Filters Applied to the Alignment of
Inertial Platforms," AGARD-LS-82, 1976.
KOSTREBA, A , , M . ZETANA, AND G. BOND, "The Blue Ace Model in Air Force Decision
Making," 1984 SCSC, pp. 1179-1182.
KOVACH,M . J., ET AL., "A Bank-to-Turn Autopilot Design for an Advanced Air-to-Air
Interceptor," Proc. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conj, August 1987, pp. 1346-
1353.
KRASN~ANSKI, D. AND R. E. EBNER,"Design of the Integrated Inertial Sensor Assembly (IISA)
Advanced Development Model," IEEE Digital Avionics Conference, November 1983.
KRAUSE, J . A N D G. STEIN,"General Adaptive Control Structures with Applications to Mis-
siles," Proc. American Control Con&,June 1988.
KRIEGER, R. J., "Aerodynamic Design Criteria for Supersonic Climb-Cruise Missiles," J. of
Spacervafi and Rockets, vol. 18, no. 2, March-April 1981, pp. 115-151.
KURODA, T. AND F. IMADO,"Advanced Missile Guidance System Against a Very High Speed
Maneuvering Target," AIAA CNC Con$, August 1989, pp. 176-180.
KURODA, T. A N D F. IMADO,"Advanced Missile Guidance System Against a Very High Speed
Maneuvering Target," Paper No. 89-3445, AIAA CNC Conj, August 1988.
KWAKERNAAK, H., "Minimax Frequency Domain Performance and Robustness Optimization
of Linear Feedback Systems,'' IEEE Trans. on Auto. Control, vol. AC-30, October 1985,
pp. 994-1004.
KWAKERNAAK, H. A N D R. SIVAN,Lir~cnt.Optir~~nl Cor~tlolS)~srerr~s. N e w York: Wiley-Inter-
scieiice, 1972.
LANCASTER, I). ANL) M . TISMENETSKY, Tlle Theory of A4atrices. 2nd cd. N e w York: Acadcmic
Press, 1985.
LANGEUOUGH, M . A. A N U F. SIMONS,"6DOF Simulation Analysis for Digital Bank-to-Turn
Autopilots," Arnericarl Cotrrrol Corlt, June 1988.
LANING, J. H. ANLI R. H. BATTIN,Rarrdorrr P~OCCSSCZ in Arctonlari( Cor~rrol.N e w York: McGraw-
Hill, 1936.
LAIIIMOIIE. W. E. ANI) W. M . LEUOW,"Basic Research it1 Targct Dynamic Models for Tactical
Missile Guidance," AFATL-TR-86-59, February 1987.
LAUB,A. J . , "Nuinerical Linear Algebra Aspects oSControl Design Computations." lEEE
Trnrri. .41rro. Corrrrol, vol. AC-30. no. 2, February 1985, pp. 97-108.
LEE, S. 1'. ANI) C. F. LIN, "Optimal Missile Nonlinear Multiloop Controller Design Prin-
ciple." Invited paper, Aero. Sirrlrrlatiorl I I Corlf, SCS Multiconferciice, January 1986.
LEFFEIITS,E. I., F. L. MAIIKLEY, A N I ) M . D . SHUSTEII, "Kalman Filtering for Spacecraft
Attitude Estimation," J . Glrid., Corir., artd Dytrnrrlirs, \,ol. 5 . 1982.
L E I I T O ~ I AN. K IA, , , "Practical Robust~icssMeasures in Multivariable Control Systcm Anal-
ysis." l'h.I>. Thesis. M.I.T.. 1981. Also in L111S-TH-1093.
L E I I T O . \ ~ ANK. IA..
. ET A L . , " R O ~ L I S ~ and I ~ CModeling
SS Error Characterization," IEEE Twr1.c.
.41ero. Corrrrol. vol. AC-29, 1981. pp. 212-220.
L E I S T ~ KV., ~ ~ ET
Y . A L . , "Optinlal C o t l t r ~ of l Air-to-Surface Missiles," Air Force Flight 1))'-
namics Laboratory. Wright-l'attcrso~i AFB, Rcpt. N o . AFFIIL-TR-06-04, March 1967.
LEONIIES, C. T . . "Ad\~ancesin the Tcchniqucs and T~clinologyof tllc Applicatiotl of Non-
linear Filters and Kalman Filters." ISBN 92-833-1418-1, AGAR1)-AG-256. March 1987.
LECINIIE\. C . T.. Gr~id~lrroc, 'irrd C O I I Ioj.4rro.c~1aic
~,~~ I 'cl~iile~.
Nc\v York: McC;r3\v-Hill. 1003.
LEWIS.F. 1..0)111rrr'7/ ~iri~r1~7li~1ri ~r'ir/rd r r ~rllrodlrifiorrlo S l ~ ~ r / r ~ C
~ i@l i cJ I I ~ /~l Ic/o r y .Nc\v York:
Wilcy. 1080.
L I M L I I L LI).I ~J.
. N.. E. M . K . ~ \ I ~ N . A LA L N IY) M.
. G. SAFONOV, "A Cl~aractaizatiotiof All
the Solutions to the Four-Block Gcncral Ilistance I'roblcm," SI.4.\1J. Cor11t.01,April 1988.
I , C. F.. d i Dcsi~qrl,.4rrolyiii, Sitrr~rlariorr,ar~dE~~nlrrariorr(.\,lDASE). Engle\vood
Cliffs. NJ: I'rcnticc Hall, to be published (Book 1 o f the Series).
LIN. C . F., .4dl,~llli(.dFI(c11f Cor11ro1Syi~c'rrlsDui,qi~.Englr\vood Cliffs, NJ: I'rcnticc Hall, to
bc published (Book 3 o f the Scrio).
LIN.(1. F.. I I I I ~ : ~.4d,1~1ri1fc,
~ ~ I C ~ arrd
, Ir~rcll~~crr~ .\:or,(q,ltiorr, Crridnrric, or111Corrrrol Sysrcrrrs Dcsi,~rr.
En~lc\voodCliffs. N1:I'rcnticc Hall. to hc puhlish~~d (llook 4 of the Scrics).
LIN, C. I:.. l)i,~ir,l/. \ " I I > ( ~ , I I I(;riid,~r~c.~,,
,I~I, ,711d <.'IIIII~CI/ Syx~crrixDc,xi,cr~,E ~ ~ g l c \ \ ? o oCliffs.
d Nj:
l'rcnticc I4:rll. t o hc pt~blislictljl3oc>k 5 of the Scrics).
LIN, C . F., ",Uodcr~iControl Concepts." .\1~1iicrrrGrrid'7rrcc ,111dCorrrroIj~rlfor~rirr~q .\lissiIc,x,
workshop organizrd by F. W. Ncslinc and C. F. Lin, An~cricanControl Cont>rcncc. Julie
1987(a).
LIN. C . F., L I A d v a ~ i ~Autopilot
cd 1)oign." .l,lt~drrrrCrcid<lrlrttnrrd Corrfr~~l./;~r Horrrir!q .Ilisiiles.
workshop organized hv F. W. Ncdinc a t ~ dC . F. Lin. Atiicricari C o ~ i t r o Confcrc~icc. l June
19X7(b).
LIN.<:. F.. "New Missile C;t~idanccand C:011tro1 Technology, panel discussion organizatiotl.7 ,

Arncrica~~ Control Czonf. and IEEE Conf. OII 13ccision and Co~ltrol.1'183-1'985.
LIN,C. F., "Optimal Missile Midcourse and Terminal Guidance and Control Law Design."
Proc. iltncritnrr Cotlrrol Cor!f. June 1085.
LIN. C . F., " A ~ V ~ I ICotitroller
CC~ I>csign for Robot Arnls." l E E E Tratls. Auto. Co~rrrol.,
vol. AC-20, no. 4, April 1984, pp. 350-353.
LIN.C . F.. "Classical vs. Modern Control System Desigti for Terminal Guidance of Bank-
to-Turn intcrccpt Missiles." I'apcr No. 83-2203, Proc. ofthe AIAA Clridatrce and Co~ttrol
Cotrfrrerrce, August lC)83(a).
LIN,C . F.. "Modeling and Simulation in Missile Target Tracking." Summer Computer Simu-
loriotr Cot!/:, July 1983(b).
LIN,C. F., "llirect Optimizatioll Methods in Parameter ldetitification of Missile Aerody-
namic Characteristics," l'apcr No. 83-2192, lOrlt Arttr~~splrrric Fli$lr .Mecharrics Cord, August
1983(c).
LIN.C. F., i'Mi~iinl~ni-Tinie Three-Dimensional Turn to a Point of Supersonic Aircraft."
AerortorrricslSpace Teck~~olo~qy, (in Russian), August 1983(d).
LIN.C. F.. "Mitiimum-Time Three-Dimensional Turn to a Point of Supersonic Aircraft,"
Zetltralhlatt Fiir Mathematik, (it1 German). 1983(e).
LIN,C . F.. "New Missile Guidance and Control Technology," panel discussion. Proc. Atrrer-
irnrr Cotrtrol Cotlfi, vol. 3, June 1983(f), p. 1090.
L I N , C. F., "Minimum-Timc Three-Dimensional Turn to a Point of Supersonic Aircraft,"
J. qf Cltid~ltlcr,Co~rtrolnrrd Dy~lil~t~ics, 5. no. 5, September-October 1982(a), 512-520.
LIN,C . F., "Optimal Control Application in Supersonic Aircraft Performance," IEE Pro-
cerdir~~ys,129, Pt. D, no. 4. Control Theory and Applications, Stevenage Herts. England:
July 1982(b), pp. 113-117.
LIN. C . F.. "Optimal Three-Dimensional Flight of a Supersonic Aircraft," Applied Mathe-
marical :Modelitg, 6, IPC Science and Technology Press, Ltd., England, April 1982(c), pp.
124-129.
LIN, C. F., "Real-Time Simulation of Onboard Flight Control Microcomputer System, 3,

Chapter 10, ~Llodeli~g atlri Sitn~rl'ltio~l

011 ;Cficrocomptrters, ed. L. A. Leventhal, The Society
for Computer Simulation, La Jolla, CA, January 1982(d), pp. 39-44.
LIN, C . F., "Optimal Trajectories in Supersonic Flight," Paper No. 82-0366, presented at
the AIAA 20th Aero. Sciences Meeting, January 1982(e).
LIN,C. F., "Microcomputer Control Applications in Integrated FlightIWeapon Control Sys-
tem," Invited paper, 21st IEEE Conf: orr Decisiow and Control, December 1982(f), pp. 827-
832.
LIN, C . F., "Optimal Three-Dimensional Turning Performance of Supersonic Aircraft,"
Paper No. 82-1326, AIAA G G C nrld 9rlr Attnospheric Fli,chr Meckanics t3Astrodynamics Conf.,
August 1982(g).
LIN,C. F., "Microproces~or-BasedReal-Time, 011-Line Image Generation for Aircraft Con-
trol," 20th IS>CJMIrrterr~at'lSyrtrp. on .\.litti and Microcomprrterr and Tkeir Applications, ACTA
Press, July 1982(h).
LIN,C . F., "Real-Time, On-Line Digital Simulation of Optimum Maneuvers of Supersonic
Aircraft," Paper No. 81-2178, AlAA Computers in Aerospace 111 Car$, October 1981, pp.
373-381.
LIN,C. F., "A Study of the Feasibility of Using AD-10 to Sirn~llateReal-Time, On-Line
Optimum Maneuvers of Supersonic Aircraft," ADlUS Itrtevtrat'l Symp., Asilomar, Mon-
terey, CA, May 1981.
 LIN, C. F., Optimum Maneuvers ofSupersonic Aircraft, Vols. 1 & 11. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Univ. of Mich. Pub., 1980.
LIN, C. F., "Advanced Control System Design," Lecture Notes, University of Michigan-
Ann Arbor & University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1979-1983.
LIN,C. F., A. E. BRYSON, AND J. L. SPEYER,"Aerospace Panel," panel organization, American
Control Conference, June 1986.
LIN, C. F. AND G. COOK, "Development and Application of Three Local Linearization Al-
gorithms for Simulation Problem," Tech. Rept., NASA Langley Research Center, De-
cember 1977.
4 LIN, C. F. A N D G. F. FRANKLIN, "Advanced Navigation, Guidance, and Control, and Their
Applications," tutorial workshop organization. 29th IEEE C o n f on Decision and Control,
December 1990.
LIN, C. F. A N D K. L. HSU, "Digital Simulation of Guidance and Control System of an
Advanced Supersonic Fighter," Invited paper, SCS Simulation Journal, January 1984, pp.
21-30.
LIN, C. F. AND C. J. LEE, "Micropro~essor-Based Intelligent Weapon Control Systems, ,,
22nd IEEE Con$ oft Decision and Control, December 1983, pp. 948-951.
LIN,C. F. A N D S. P. LEE, "Robust Missile Autopilot Design Using a Generalized Singular
Optimal Control Technique," J . of Guidance, Conrrol and Dynamics, vol. 8, no. 4. July-
August 1985, pp. 498-507.
LIN,C. F., S. P. LEE, A N D J. C. JUANG,"High Performance, Robust, Adaptive BTT Missile
Autopilot Design," American G N C Corp., Final Rept. submitted to Eglin AFB, October
1990.
LIN, C. F. AND M . MOHEBBI,"Digital Simulation of Advanced Terminal Guidance and
Control of Tactical Missiles," 14th Annual Modeling and Si~nulatiot~C o t $ , University of
Pittsburgh, April 1983.
33
LIN,C. F. A N D M. W. SHAFROTH, "A Missile Control Strategy for Maneuvering Targets,
Invited paper, American Cotltrol Cot$, June 1983(a), pp. 1084-1089.
J LIN, C. F. A N D M. W. SHAFROTH, "Modern Tracking, Errinlation, and Identification in
Tactical Missile Control," 22nd IEEE Conf. on Decisiotl and Control, December 1983(b),
pp. 1310-1315.
LIN,C. F. A N D M. W. SHAFROTH, "A Comparative Evaluation of Some Maneuvering Target
Tracking Algorithms," Paper No. 83-2168, A I A A G u i d . and Cotlrrol C o n f , August 1983(c),
pp. 39-56.
LIN, C. F. A N D M. W. SHAFROTI-I, "Kalman Filter Applications in Highly Maneuverable,
Intelligent Target Tracking." Nat'l Arro. & Elec. C O I ! (~N A E C O N ) . May 1983(d). pp.
441-448.
LIN, C. F. A N D J. L. SIJEYEII,"Aerospace Panel," panel organization, 24th IEEE Cotrj or1
Decisiort and Cotrtrol, December 1985.
LIN,C. F. A N D L. L. TSAI."Analytical Solution of Optimal Trajectory Shaping Guidance,"
J. ofcuidance, Conrrol and Dynamics, vol. 10, no. 1, January-February 1987, pp. 61-66.
LIN,C. F. A N V N. X. VINH,"Optimum Maneuvers of Supercruiser," Lerr~ireNotes ill Cotttrol
and Informarion Scirr~rcs,vol. 38, New York: Springer-Vcrlag, 1982. pp. 293-301.
LIN,C . F. AND W. R. YUEII,"Optimal Missile Guidance and Control System Design I'rin-
ciple." Invited paper, Proc. 1st S C S Confrrence on Acrospan Simulatiot~.San Diego, CA,
February 1984(a).
LIN, C . F. A N D W. R. Y U E ~ "Optimal
I, Controller for Homing Missile," Proc. American
Cotttrol Cot$. June 1984(b).
,,
LIN,C . F. A N I ) W. R. YUEII."Optimal Controller for Bank-to-Turn Missile, Paper pre-
sented at the 23rd IEEE Cotlfi.rrttceotr Decisiot~and Cotltrol, Las Vegas. NV, December
1984(c).
LINIILEY, D . A N U A. SMITH."Bayes Estimates for the Linear Model," J. Royal Statistical, Soc.
Ser. B, vol. 34, no. 1, 1971.
LII,I~,IAN, R. P., "An Introduction to Computing with Neural Nets." IEEE ASSP ,Cla~uzine,
April 1987, pp. 4-23.
Llc, M. H. A N D K. W. HAN, "Model Reduction of a Nonlinear Control System," J. of
Spacecruj atld Rockers. Deccmber 1975, pp. 786-788.
LOBBIA, R. N. A N D G. TSO,"An Application of LQR Theory in an Integrated Guidance-
Control Design for Advanced Cruise Missiles," American Cotitrol Cot$, June 1987.
LOCKE,A. S., Guidance. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1955, Chapter 12.
L o o z ~ .D. P., J. Y. Hsu, A N D D. B. GRUNBERG, "Investigation of Fundamental Issues in
the Use of Acceleration Estimates by Endgame Guidance Laws," AFATL-TR-87-50, De-
cember 1987.
LUKICH, M . S. A N D F. C . TUNG, "Experimental Verification of Control and System Iden-
tification Techniques for a Flexible Truss Structure," Proc. American Control Conf., June
1986.
M'KFARLANE, A. G. J. A N D I. POSTLETHWAITE, "The Generalized Nyquist Stability Criterion
and Multivariable Root Locus," 1nt. J. Control, vol. 25, 1974, pp. 81-127.
MADIGAN, R. J., "Flight Test Experiments to Evaluate Aided-Inertial System Performance
for Terminal Guidance," J. Inst. Xav., vol. 17, no. 1, Spring 1970, pp. 83-91.
MAGILL, D. T., "Optimal Adaptive Estimation of Sampled Stochastic Processes," IEEE
Trunr. Auto. Cot~rrol,vol. AC-10, October 1965, pp. 434-439.
M.+KSIMOV A N D GORGONOV, Electrotlic Hominx Systems. Norwood, Massachusetts: Artech
House, 1988.
M.ANVILLE, P., "Weapon Delivery and Its Evaluation," AGARD-LS-101, June 1979, pp. 2-
1 to 2-23.
MARQUARDT, D., "Generalized Inverses, Ridge Regression, Biased Linear Estimation and
Nonlinear Estimation," Technomeairs, vol. 12, 1970.
M-ARTIN, G. E., "Avionic Systems Engineering Integrated Avionics Guidance Systems,"
UCLA Dept. of Engineering and Science Short Course Programs, Engineering 867.12,
Section 16, July 1986.
M.ARTIN, J. M. A N D G. A. HEWER,"Smallest Destabilizing Perturbations for Linear Systems,"
Int. J. Control, vol. 45, 1987, pp. 1495-1504.
MAYBECK, P. S., Stoc~tarti~Models, Estimationand Contuol, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press,
1979.
MAYBECK, P. S. AND K. P. HENTZ,"Investigation ofMoving-Bank Multiple Model Adaptive
Algorithms," J. Guid., Control, and Dynamics, 10, no. 1, January-February 1987, 90-96.
MCALLISTER, D. F. AND E. E. SCHIRING, "Optimizing Thrust Vector Control for Short
Powered Flight Maneuvers," Space Electronics Symposium, C. M. Wong, ed., American
Astronautical Society, 1965, pp. V1-V32.
MCAULAY, R. J. AND E. DENLINGER, "A Decision-Directed Adaptive Tracker," IEEE Trans.
oti Aero. and Elect. Sys, vol. AES-9, March 1973.
640 ReferenceslBib liography

MCCONNELL, G. A N D G. W. IRWIN,"Multirate CLOS Filter-Controller Design," Paper N o .

89-3587, AIAA GNC Con$, August 1989, Figs. 1 81 2.
MCGEHEE,R. M., "Bank-To-Turn (BTT) Technology," Paper No. 79-1752, Pvoc. of the
A l A A Guidance and Corltrol Confevence, August 1979.
MCGOWAN, J., "Velocity Accuracy Measurement of GPS User Equipment," AGARD-CP-
411, 1987.
MEHRA,R. K., R. EHRICH, A N D W. LARIMORE, "Strapdown Seeker Advanced Guidance for
Short Range Air-to-Air Missiles," AFATL-TR-84-47, May 1984.
MENON,P. K. A. A N D M . M. BRIGGS, "A Midcourse Guidance Law for Air-to-Air Missiles,"
AIAA paper No. 87-2509, Proc. Guidance, Na~~(~atiort attd Control Cot$, August 1987.
MEYER,G. AND L. CICOLANI, "Applications of Nonlinear Systems Inverses t o Automatic
Flight Control Design-System Concepts and Flight Evaluations," AGARD-AG-251,
1981, pp. 10-1 to 10-29.
MICKELSON, W. A. A N D M. J. CARRICO, "Development and Flight Evaluation of an Integrated
GPSIINS Navigation System," Paper No. 89-3198, AlAA Gh7C Cot$, August 1989.
MIISA (Multi-Function Integrated Inertial Sensor Assen~bly),Memorandum of agreement
between the Naval Air Systems Command and the Air Force Aeronautical Systems Di-
vision and the Army Aviation Systems Conimand for joint development and production
of, signed November 21, 1985 by Navy and Air Force.
MIWA,S. ANI) F. I M A L ~"Clutter
, Effect on the Guidancc of a Scmi-Active Radar Homing
Missile," 1. Girid., Corltrol, arrd Dytrarrtics, vol. 9, no. 3, May-June 1986.
MOOSE,R. L., "An Adaptive State Estimation Solution to the Maneuvering Target Prob-
lem," IEEE Tvarts. on1 Atrtomatic Cnrtrrol. vol. AC-20, June 1975, pp. 359-362.
MOOSE,R. L., H . F. V A N L A N D I N G HAA NDMD.
, H. MCCABE,"Modcling and Estimation
for Tracking Maneuvering Targets," IEEE Tra11.r..4rrosp. Elettrnr~icSystcrn.c. vol. AES-15.
no. 3. May 1979, pp. 118-456.
MOOSE,R. L. AN, P. 1'. WANG."An Adaptive Estimator with Learning for a Plant Con-
taining Semi-Markov Switching Parameters," IEEE Tr,ttrs. nrt Systrrrrs, .l4atr and Cybcrrtctirs,
vol. SMC-3, May 1973, pp. 277-281.
MORRISON, P. H., "A Lesson Learned About Cannon-Launched Guided Projectiles," 1. G~rid-
ante artd Cottrrol, vol. 3, no. 2, March-April 1980, pp. 154-157.
MURRAY. T.. "Correlation of Linear and Nonlinear Radonie Error Induced Miss Distance
Predictions," Proc. Arrrrri(art CotttroI Conf.,June 1981.
MURRAY, T., S. I'OWEIIS, A N O J. KOLL,"Relative Effcct of In-l'lane and Cross-Plane Radomc
Error Slopes and Thcir Graphical I'resentation." Prrlr. 13th Syrtr. Elrttrorira,qrleric Ili'trd~~~r~s.
Georgia Inst. of Tcch.. Scptcmbcr 21-23, 1970.
NASII,R. A,. KJ A L . , "Error Analysis oiHybrid Aircraft Inertial Navigation Systems," AlAA
paper No. 72-848, 1972.
NAZAI~OFF. G. J.. "An Optimal Terminal Guidancc Law." IEEE Tratrs. otr .Arllorr~arir Cnr~tro/.
June 1976, pp. 407-408.
9 9

NESLINE, F. W. A N I ) N . C. NALIIICFELI?. "Ilcsigti of Iligital Autopilot for Homing Missiles.

AGARll-C1'-27U. May 21-24, 1979. pp. 29-1 to 29-14.
NESLINE, F. W. A N I ) M. L. NESLINE, "An Analysis of Optimal Command Guidancc \'s.
Optimal Semi-Active Homing Missile Guidance," Pvilc. Aritcric~trtCnlrrol Cot!(, Junc 1")Xh.
pp. 1103-1111.
NFSI.INE.F. W . A N I I M. L. NESLINE. "llhase VS. G i n Stabilizatiori of Structural Feedback
Oscillations in l i o m i ~ ~Missile
g Autopilots." I'ror. ilrrrrrirat~Cc~rrtn~l Car!/:. June 1985, pp.
323-32').
NESLINE F.. W. A N I I M. L. NI;SL.INE, "HOW Autopilot IIeq~lirenle11tsConstrain the Aero-
dynamic 1)csign of Homing Missiles," Proc. ofrl~eAnlericat~Co11trl11Cotl/i~rr~r~r, vol. 2. June
11)84(n).pp. 710-730.
NESLINE. F. W. A N I I M. L. N I ~ S L I N''tlotl~i~ig
E, Missile Autopilot Ilcsponse Sensitivity to
Stability I>erivative V~riations."IE1:'E Cclr~f1111 Vriisio~r11t111 Corltrol. I>cccrnbcr I1)X4(b).
NESLINI:, F. W.. M. L. NEWNI:.A N I ) C. F. L I K . "Modern Guid;uncc and Control for Homing
Missilcs," Gui~icdMissile Worksllop Notcs. .4iil(,rinli1C ~ ~ t ~ rCot!/:, r o l June 10XO.
NESLINE. F. W., ti. H. WELLS,,AN!) P. ZAIN:II.\N, "Co~llbinedOptimaliClassical Approach
to Robust Missile Autopilot Ilcsign," J. G r i d . atrd Cc~r~rrol, vol. 4, no. 3, May-June 1981,
pp. 316-322.
NESLINE, F. W. A N I I 1'. ZAIICIIAN. "Line-of-Sight R e c o t i ~ t r ~ ~ c tfor
i o r Faster
~ Homing Guid-
ance," J. C~rid<~tlte, vol. 8, no. 1. January-February 1985, pp. 3-8.
NESLINE, F. W. A N D P. Z A I I C I I A ",Miss
N, 1)istaricc l>ynamics in Homing Missiles," Proc.
Al.4'4 Cl~id.n~rdControl C~IIJ:.August 1984(a), pp. 20-22.
NESLINE. F. W. A N I ) 1'. ZAIICII.AN, "Radonlc Induced Miss Distance in Aerodynamically
Controlled Homing Missiles." AI.4.4 G~rid.'11111 Cor~troICotq:, A U ~ L 1(184(b). IS~
NESLINE. F. W. A N I ) 1'. ZAIK:II.AN."Hardware Sofc\varc Trade-offs for Digital Flight Control
oiGuided Missiles," AGARI3-CI'-314. 1082, pp. 22-1 to 22-26.
NESLINE. F. W. A N I ) 1'. ZAIICIIAN. "A New Look at Classical Versus Modern Homing Missile
Guidance."J. c~/Ctriliilncenrld Cor~trol,vol. 4, no. 1, January-February 1981, pp. 78-85.
NEWTON, G. C.. L. A. GOULII.A N D J. F. KAISEII, ii~ralytiialDesi.fr~oj-Litreur Feedback Cor~trols.
New York: Wiley, 1957.
NIELSON, J . T.. G. W.SWEAIIINGEN. A N I ) A. J. WITSMEER, "GPS Aided Inertial Navigation,"
IEEE 4 E S ~Llt~.qt~:irro,March 1986.
NIESSEN, F. R., "A Complernentary Filtering Technique for Deriving Aircraft Velocity and
Position Information," AGARD-CP-172, 1975.
OHTA,H . A N I I A. FUJIMORI,
"A Ssnthesis of Robust Optimal Regulators Using Singular
Value with Application to Gust Load Alleviation," AIAA Gtrid., . b v . & Cotltrol Con/.,
August 1988, pp. 519-528.
OIITA,H., M. K A K I N U MAAN,D P. N. NIKIFORUK, "Optimal Regulators with Kessler Type
of Pole Location with Application to Roll Autopilot Design," Paper No. 88-41 13, Guidance,
hhvigatiotl urtd Corrtrol Cot$. August 1988, pp. 511-518.
O M A N ,S., "A Confidence Bound Approach to Choosing the Biasing Parameter in Ridge
Regression," 1.Atrrericufr Stcftistic,~lAssoc., vol. 76, June 1981.
E. E., "On Preconditioning of Matrices," JACM, vol. 7, 1960, pp. 338-345.
OSBORNE,
OSDER,S. S., "Helicopter Avionics Architecture for Integrating Flight Critical Functions,"
AIAAIIEEE 7th Diyital Aviorrics Systems Cor$erence, October 1986, pp. 134-141.
P A D ~ I S OF.N ,C . , "The Talos Control System," Johtls Hopkins APL Techrricul Digest, vol. 3,
no. 2, April-June 1982, pp. 154-156.
PADFIELD, G. D., "A Theoretical Model of Helicopter Flight Mechanics for Application to
Piloted Simulation," RAE TR-81048, April 1981.
 A., Probability, Random Variables, Srockastic Processes. 2nd edition, New Yo&:
PAPOULIS,
McGraw-Hill, 1984.
PAPPAS,T., A. J. LAUB,A N D N. R. SANDELL, "On the Numerical Solution of the Discrete-
Time Algebraic Riccati Equation," I E E E Trarir. A u t o . Control, vol. AC-25, 1980, pp. 631-
641.
P~smlcH
~ ., L., ET AL., "Lethal Air Defense Suppression Technology Base Definition,"
AGARD-CP-388, 1986.
PASTRICK, H. L., S. M. SELTZER, A N D M. E. T A R R E N"Guidance
, Laws for Short-Range
Tactical Missiles," 1.of Guidance and Control, vol. 4, no. 2, March-April 1981, pp. 98-
108.
PASTRICK, H. L. A N D R. J. YORK,"On the Determination of Unspecified tF in a Guided
Missile Optimal Control Law Application," Proc. of the I E E E Conferei~reoil Derision and
Confrol, December 1977, pp. 1211-1215.
PEARSON, J. B. A N D E. B. STEAR,"Kalman Filter Applications in Airborne Radar Tracking,"
I E E E Trans. on Aero. and Elecrron. Sys., vol. AES-10, no. 3, May 1974, pp. 319-329.
PELEGRIN, M., "Homing of Aerospace Vehicles," Systems G. Control Enc)~clopedia,ed. M. G.
Singh, vol. 3, Oxford, Great Britain: Pergamon Press, 1987(a), p. 2164.
PELEGRIN, M., "Inertial Systems," Systems G Cotltrol Ei~cgclo~edia, ed. M. G. Singh. vol. 4,
Oxford, Great Britain: Pergamon Press, 1987(b), p. 2488.
PERLMUTTER, L. D. A N D C. K. FITSCHEN, "Unaided Tactical Guidance Flight Test," AGARD-
CP-292, May 1980, pp. 17-1 to 17-15.
PETERSON, E. L., Statistical Analysis and Opritnirariotr qf Sysrems. New York: Wiley, 1961.
PFEIFFER,C . , "A S U C C C S S Approxinlation
~V~ Technique for Constructing a Near-Optinlunl
Guidance Law," Proc. Inreniatior~al Asrroirarrtiral Cor!fereilce, Asrrodytlatnics, G~ridatlce,arld
Conrrol, Misccllatlea, 1967, pp. 285-291.
PITMAN, D. L., "Adjoint Solutions to intercept Guidance," AGARD-LS-52, May 1972, pp.
36-1 to 36-5.
PITMAN, G. R., ed., lricrtial Cilidatrce. New York: Wiley, 1962.
PITTS, W. C., ET AL., "Lift and Center of Pressure of Wing-Body-Tail Combinations at
Subsonic, Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds," NACA-TR-1307.
POKROVSKII. A. V., "The Limiting Norm of a Linear Operator and Its Applications," So~jieI
Mark D o k l . 20, 1979.
POTTER,J. E.. "Matrix Quadratic Equations." S1.4A.IJ. A p p l . Math, vol. 14, 1964(a), pp.
496-501.
POTTER.J. E., "A Guidance-Navigation Separation Theorem," Paper No. 64-653,
.41A.4/10dV Asrrodytlaittics C~cidanrcand Control Cot!fcc~rtrr,August 1964(b).
POULTEII, R. A. AND G. M. ANUEIISON, "A Guidance Concept for Air-to-Air Missiles Based
on Nonlinear Iliffcrel~tialGame Theory," hbrional Aerospace Elerrrottics Cotlferetlrr, 1976.
pp. 605-609.
POWERS, W.. personal communication, 1978.
POWEIIS, W., Guidance Course Notes, University of Michigan, 1976.
3 s
PRICE.C . F.. "Application of Optimal Control Techniques t o Tactical Missile Guidance,
AGARD-CP-251, pp. 13-1 to 13-18.
PRICE,C. F. A N I ) R. S. WARREN. "Performance Evaluation of Homing Guidance Laws for
Tactical Missiles." Thc Analytical Sciences Corp., Rcpt. No. TR-170-4, January 1973.
RAIXOTECIINICAI. COMMISSION FOR AERONAUTICS. "Minimum Operational Performance
Standards for Microwave Landing System Area Navigation Systems," seventh draft, (Spe-
cial Committee 151, Washington, DC), May 1986.
RAHLFS, D., W. AUCII,0. GLASEII. A N D D. RUPI~ERT,"Fiber Optic Gyros Strapdown Ref-
erence System for Guided Weapons," AGARD-CP-431, 1987.
R.\NG. E. I<., "A Comment on Closed-Loop Optimal Guidance Systems," IEEE Trtlns. on
.-i~rrorndticCorrtrol, July 1966, pp. 616-617.
R.Ao. M. N . , "Comments on Analytic Solution of Optimal Trajectory Shaping Guidal~ce,s 9

J . Guidance, Control and Dyrramics. November-December 1989. pp. 600-601.

REICHERT, R. T . , "Application of H, Control to Missile Autopilot Design," Paper No. 89-
3550, A I A A CNC Cot$, August 1989.
REICHERT, R. T., "Homing Performance Comparison of Selected Airframe Configurations
Using Skid-to-Turn and Bank-to-Turn Steering Policies," NASA CR-3420, May 1981.
REICHERT, R. T . , "Impact of Imperfect Turn Coordination on Bank-to-Turn Performance,"
Johns Hopkins UniversitylApplied Physics Laboratory, JHUJAPL FlC(1)-80-U-004, Jan-
uary 23, 1980.
REICHEIIT, R. T., "Bank-to-Turn Terminal Homing Performance of a Long Range Surface-
to-Air Missile Against a Nonmaneuvering Threat," JHUIAPL FlC(1)-79-U-002, January
10. 1979.
REID.D . B., "An Algorithm for Tracking Multiple Targets." l E E E Trans. on Automatic
Control, vol. AC-24, 1979, p. 843.
REMER, J. A N D B. B I L L M A N"Microwave
N, Landing System (MLS)," IEEEIAIAA 7th Digital
Avionics Systerns Conferemre, October 1986, pp. 69-75.
RIEDEL, F. W., "Bank-to-Turn Control Technology Survey for Homing Missiles," NASA
CR-3325, September 1980.
RIEDEL, F. W. A N D D. K. WHITE,"A Comparison of Pattern Recognition Discriminant Sets
for Autonomous Ship Target Classification," JHUIAPL FS-83-202, 1983.
RIGGS,I., "Linear Optimal Guidance for Short Range Air-to-Air Missiles," AIAA National
Meeting, August 1978. (Also available as 1979 NAECON, May 1979)
RIGGS,T. L. A N D P. L. VERGEZ,"Advanced Air-to-Air Missile Guidance Using Optimal
Control and Estimation," AFATL-TR-81-56, June 1981.
RILEY, J., "Solving Systems of Linear Equation-With a Positive Definite, Symmetric but
Possibly Ill-Conditioned Matrix," Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Computatiorr, vol.
9, 1955.
RISHEL,R. W., "Optimal Terminal Guidance of an Air-to-Surface Missile," Paper No. 67-
580, A I A A Guidance, Corltrol arrd Flight Dynamics Conference, August 1967.
ROBINSON, C . A , , "USAF Studies New Standoff Weapons," Aviation Week. New York:
McGraw-Hill, October 17, 1983, pp. 54-55.
RODDY,D. J. A N D G. W. IRWIN,"Fixed-Wing-Angle, B T T Control," Proc. IEE, Part D,
May 1986.
RODDY,D. J. A N D G. W. IRWIN,"Optimal Nonlinear B T T Control in a CLOS Guidance
system," Proc. Americart Corltrol Conference, vol. 1, June 1984(a), pp. 440-442.
RODDY,D. J. AND G. W. IRWIN,"Optimal Controllers for Bank-to-Turn CLOS Guidance,"
Proc. I E E , Part D , vol. 131, no. 4, July 1984(b), pp. 109-115.
RODDY,D. J. AND G. W. IRWIN, "Application of Modern Control to Bank-to-Turn Guidance
Using Digital Simulation," Proc. Summer Computev Simulation Conference, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, vol. 1, July 11-13, 1983, pp. 296-301.
RODDY,D. J . , G. W. IRWIN, A N D H . WILSON, "Optimal Controllers for Bank-to-Turn CLOS
Guidance," Proc. I E E , Pt. D . , vol. 131, no. 4, July 1984, pp. 109-115.
ROSELL,F. A. A N D R. H . WILSON,"Recent Psychophysical Experiments and the Display of
Signal-to-Noise Concept," Chap. 5 in Perceptiort ofDisplayed I~ijoumation,L. M. Bibermat~,
ed., New York: Plenum Press, 1973.
ROSENBROCK, H. H., compute^-Aided Co~rrrolSystem Desipr. New York: Academic Press,
1974.
RUMELHART, D . E., G. E. HINTON,A N D R. J. WILLIAMS, "Learning lnternal Representations
by Error Propagation," in Parallel Disrsib~rtedProcessing: Explorations in the Micvosrructure qf
Cognition. Cambridge: MlT Press, 1986.
RUTH,M. J., "A Classical Perspective on Application of H, Control Theory to a Flexible
Missile Airframe," Paper No. 3551, AI.1.4 GlYC Cot!{, August 1989.
SAFONOV, M. G., "Robustness and Stability Aspects of Stochastic Multivariable Feedback
System Design," Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT, 1977. Also MIT Rept. ESL-P-763, September
1977.
SAFONOV, M. G. A N U M. A T I ~ A N"GainS , and Phase Margin for Multiloop LQG Regulators,"
l E E E Trans. il~rrotnaricControl, vol. AC-22, no. 2, April 1977, pp. 173-179.
SAFONOV, M. G., R. Y. CI-IIANG, A N D H. FLASHNEII, ''HZ Robust Control Synthesis for a
Large Space Structure," Atnericatl Cotrrsol Cot$, June 1988, pp. 2038-2045.
SAFONOV, M. G.. A. J . LAUII,A N I I G. L. H.+I~TMANN. "Feedback Properties of Multivariable
Systems: The Role and Use of the Rcturn Difference Matrix," I E E E Trans. orr A~rrorrroric
Cotrrsol, vol. AC-26. 1981.
SAMMONS, J . M., S. B A L A K R I S I I NJ.AL.N , SI~EYER, A N D D. G. HULL,L L I ~ ~ ~ e l oandpn~c~~t
Comparison of Optimal Filters," AFATL-TR-79-87, October 1979.
SAVAGE, P. G., "Advances in Strapdown Sensors," in Advances it1 Strapdou~rlInertial Systcrrrs,
cd. G. T. Schmidt. AGARIJ-LS-133, 1984(a), pp. 2-1 to 2-24.
SAVAGE, 1'. G., "Strapdown System Algorithms," in Adl~ancrsitr Srrapdoufrr I~rcrtialSystcrtrs,
cd. G. T. Schmidt. AGARIJ-LS-133, 1984(b), pp. 3-1 to 3-30.
SAVAGE, 1'. G., "Strapdown SCIISO~S," in Srrapdo~cvr Inrrrial Sysrrrrrs, ed. G. T . Schmidt.
AGAIIIJ-LS-95. 1978, pp. 7-1 to 2-10.
S C I ~ I . E I I 1). , I~rtrodl~criotlto EIrc~ronic Il'ar:farr, IJcdham. MA: Artcch Housc, 1980.
E I <C.,
S C I ~ L E I I11. , ed., Al~ronlaricDrrr(riotl and Radnr Dnra Proccssirr,~. llcdham, MA: Artcch
E I <C..
Housc, Inc., 1980.
SCIIMII)T, G. T., "Inertial Systems: Selection and Integration," in Sysri-tns G. Col~trolEncyclo-
pedia, ed. M. G. Singh, vol. 4. Oxford, Great Britain: I'crganion I'rcss. 1987, pp. 2488-
2492.
S C H M I I ~G.. . T., "Strapdown Inertial Systems." in Strapdorc,rr Itrcrtinl Systcrns, ed. G. T.
Schmidt. AGARD-LS-95. 1978, pp. 1-1 to 1-10.
SCHMII)T. G. T., "Linear and Nonlinear Filtering Techniques," in Corttrol and Dynarnic SI'S-
terns, ed. C . Leondes, vol. 12. New York: Academic Press, 1976, pp. 63-98.
SCIIMIDT, S. F., "The Kalman Filter: Its Recognition and Development for Aerospace Ap-
plications,"J. Grid. ar~dCorrt., vol. 4. 1981, pp. 4-7.
SC:IIMII>T, S. F., ' L C ~ n ~ p ~ t a t iTechniques
o~lal in Kalman Filtering," N A T O AGARI3-Ograph
139, February 1070.
SETTEIILUNI), I<. H., "New Insights into Miliimunl Variance Reduced Order Filters," Report
P-2738, Cambridge, MA: Ilraper Laboratory, 1986.
OJ. . , "I~esign/l~cvelopmcnr
S I I A I J I RA. Tradeoffs to Achieve a Mission Effective SOW Guid-
ance System," AGAR[>-CP-388, 1986, pp. 3-1 to 3-14.
S E I I EC. L.. "Ai~topilot Ilcsign for Bank-to-Turn Flight Vehicles," S.M. Thesis,
M.I.T., 1987.
SIIEPIIEIII), C. L. A N D L. V A L A V A N "Autopilot
I, Design for Bank-to-Turn Missiles Using
LQG/LTR Methodology." Atrrrricurr Corrtrol Cot$, June 1988, pp. 579-586.
SILJ.<C, D. D., Norrlinear Systerrts. New York: Wiley, 1969.
SINGER, R. A., "Estimating Optinlal Tracking Filter Performance for Manned Maneuvering
Targets," IEEE Trat~s.Aerosp. Electror~icSysterns, vol. AES-6, no. 4, July 1970.
SINGER, R. A. A N D K. BEHNKE. "Real-Time Tracking Filter Evaluation and Selection for
Tactical Application," 1EEE Trans. or1 .4ero. tzrrd Elect. Syst., vol. AES-7, no. 1, January
1971, pp. 100-110.
SIOLRIS. G. M.. "Comparison Between Proportional and Augmented Proportional Navi-
1,
gation, .IhcIrriclrtrrrtec/~~~iscIrr Zrirsilrrifr, July 1974, pp. 278-280.
SKOLNIK, M. I., "Bistatic Radar," lrrrrodrcctiorr to RLzdarSysterr~s.New York: McGraw-Hill,
1980, p. 557.
SKOLNIK, M. I., "Ground Echo," Radnr Har~dbook.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970, pp. 25-
26.
SOBEL,K. M. A N D F. J . LALLMAN, "Eigenstructure Assignment for the Control of Highly
Augmented Aircraft," Proc. Ameriiurr Cor~trolCurd, June 1988.
SOKC,T. L. . \ N U J . L. SI'EYER,"A Stochastic Analysis of a Modified Gain Extended Kalman
Filter with Applications to Estimarion with Bearing Only Measurements," IEEE Trans.
-3rrro. Corrtrol., vol. AC-30, no. 10, October 1983, pp. 940-949.
SORENSON, H . W., Parameter Estimatiorr. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1980.
SPEAKMAN, N. O . , "Adaptive Autoregressive (AR) Target Model Identification," Aerospace
Sirnulatiorl I I , January 1986, pp. 162-173.
SPEYER, J . L., "A Perspective on Aerospace Control Systems," IEEE Corttrol Systems Mag-
nzirre, vol. 7, April 1987, pp. 11-12.
SPEYER, J . L., W. M . GREENWELL,
A N D D. G. HULL,"Adaptive Noise Estimation and Guid-
ance for Homing Missiles," A1A.i G~rid.and Corrtrol Cot$, August 1982, pp. 48-56.
SPEYER, J. L. A N D D. G. HULL,"Comparison of Several Extended Kalman Filter Formulations
for Homing Missile Guidance," Pruc. oJ-the AIAA Guidance and Control Conference, August
1980.
SPEYER, J. L., D. G. HULL,A N D C. Y. TSENG,"Estimation Enhancement by Trajectory
Modulation for Homing Missiles." J. Guid., Cont. and Dynamics, vol. 7, no. 2, March-
April 1984, pp. 167-174.
J . L. A N D T. L. SONG,"A Comparison Between Pseudomeasurement and Extended
SPEYER,
Kalman Observers," Proc. lEEE Cot$ on Decision and Control, December 1981.
SRIDHAR, B. A N D N. K. GUI'TA,"Accurate Real-Time SRAAM Guidance Using Singular
Perturbation Optimal Control," Proc. of Natiorral Aerospace arid Elertrorrics Confereilce, May
1979, pp. 772-779.
STALLARD, D. V., "Biased Optimal Guidance for a Bank-to- urn Missile," Proc. American
Control Conjrence, June 1983.
STALLARD, D. V., "An Approach to Optimal Guidance for a Bank-to-Turn Missile," Proc.
of the A I A A Guidance and Corlrrol Cor$errrrte, August 1980, pp. 192-202.
STEINBERG, R. A. A N D J . J. RIVERA, "Infrared Ship Detection at Low Signal-to-Noise,'
JHUIAPL FS-87-193, 1987.
STOCKUM, L. A. A N D F. C. WEIMER, "Optimal and Suboptimal Guidance for a Short-Range
Homing Missile," I E E E Trarrs. Aerospace arzd Electronic Sysrerns, May 1976, pp. 355-360.
STREETER, J. R., "Aircraft Guidance and Control," Aviottics System Errgirreerirlg, UCLA Dept.
of Engineering and Science Short Course Program, Engineering 867.12, Session 1, July
25, 1972. (Also August 4, 1970)
STREETS, R. B., "Optimum Linear Filters for the Butterwork Case," Letter, Proc. of tke I E E E ,
February 1968, p. 209.
SUTTON,R. A N D C. L. WINDLEY, "Stabilisation and Simulation ofthe Height Control System
of a Sea Skimming Missile," Srriitmer Coinpurer Sirn~rlatiorrCot$, July 1984, pp. 496-501.
SWORDEII, D. A N D R. G. HUTCFIINS, "Image-Enhanced Tracking," I E E E Trarrs. Aero. Elec-
trori. Sysr., vol. AES-25, no. 5, September 1980, pp. 701-709.
TANG, Z., ET A L . , "On a Simple Tracking Filter," Prof. Arnericarr Corrrrol Cor$rerrce, June
1984, pp. 1398-1403.
TAZARTES, D. A. A N I I J. G. MARK,"Integration of GPS Receivers into Existing Inertial
Navigation Systems," Naoijiatiorr: Jouri~alqfthe lrrsrit~rrc?f'.Yo~~i~qnriorr, vol. 35, no. 1, Spring
1988.
TEMPLEMAN, W., "Linearized Guidancc Lalvs," A I A A Jor~rr~al, November 1965, pp. 2148-
2149.
THEOUOLI). C . M . , L'Gcneralizatio~lof Mean Square Error Applied to Ilidgc Regression,"
J. Royal Sfnrisrital, Sor. Ser. B. vol. 36, 1974.
TIIIUODEAU, R. A N D J. B. SHAIIIJ, "PDM Control Analysis Using the I'hase Plane." J . of
Spacetrafr arrd Rockets, September 1969, pp. 1054-1057.
Tttoru~,J. S., "Optimal Tracking of Maneuvering Targets," I E E E Trarls. Acrosp. Elrcrrorlit
Sysrrms, vol. AES-9, no. 4, July 1973, pp. 512-519.
TITUS,H., L I M i ~ Guidatice,"
~il~ Anicrican Control Conference workshop notcs, June 1985.
TOOLSN, W. K. A N I ) K . H. G I ( O I ( L I"l~evelopnie~it
~T, and Sirnulatiotl Testing of an lntcgratcd
Sc~isorySubsystem (ISS) for Advanced Aircraft (I'hasc Ill)," I E E E Di,qirnl Ai~iorlics Corr-
jrrrrce. November 1983.
TRAVEI~S, I)., "Design Equations for I'roportional Navigation with Parasitic Feedback," Pror.
Arncricar~ Corrrrol Cor$erriitr, JUIIC'1986, pp. 11 12-1 123.
s , "Time-Varying Smoothing for I'roportio~ial Navigatio~i,"I'rtv. Americarl Carl-
T n ~ v ~ r tI'.,
rrol Cor!firrr~re,Julie 1985.
TIIAVEIIS, P., "lntroductio~ito lt~tcrccptorIlynaniics, ,, Lecture notcs prcsc~ltcdin Singapore,
June 9. 1982.
TI~OTTILI(, G., "AII I~~\'estigatio~i of Steep I>escent Guidancc for Terminally-Guided Sub-
Munitions," AGAR1)-CP-431. 1987, pp. 11-1 to 11-16.
T R U N KG. , V. ANII J. 1). WILSON."Tracking Filters for Multiple-Platform Radar Integra-
tion," NRL Report 8087, Ilccember 1976.
TSENC. C . Y., D. G. HULL,A N I J J. L. SPEYEII, "A Study of Maxiniilni Information Trajec-
tories for Homing Missilc Guid~nce,"AFATL-TR-84-49, October 1984.
Tso, G. T. A N I ) R. N.LOIIIHA, "Multimode Guidance in Advanced Air-to-Air Missile Ap-
plicatiotis," Pror. o j t h e A I A A Grtidarlce, ~Vav!yatior~, atrd Corrtrol Cor~jrertce,August 1986.
TUCKEII, S. J. A N I ) H. E. STERN,"An Application of Error-Covariance Analysis to Inertial
l'latforrn Errors." Proc. Arrreric,irr Corrtrol Cot$. June 1986, pp. 11'74-1 1'79.
TULEY, M . T., M. M. HORST.A N I ) J. W. PFEIFEII, L ' D e v e l o p n ~ ~and
n t Validation o f a Track
L'oi~lt Model for an Anti-Ship Missile Simulation." Georgia Tech. Research Inst. Project
A3417 Final Technical Report, April 1985.
TUNG,F., "An Optimal Discrete Control Strategy for Terminal Guidance," Proc. o f j o i n t
Atrtornatic Cotltrol Cardererrcr, 1965, pp. 499-507.
VANLOAN, C. F., "HOW Near is a Stable Matrix to an Unstable Matrix," Contemp. hinth.,
vol. AMS-47, 1985, pp. 465-478.
VERGEZ, P. L. A N D R. K. LIEFER."Target Acceleration Modeling for Tactical Missile Guid-
ance," J. G t l i d ~ ~ r ~Control,
ce, arrd Dyrlarnics, vol. 7 , no. 3, May-June 1984, pp. 315-321.
VERIIAEGEN, M . A N D P. VANDOOREN,"Numerical Aspects of Different Kalman Filter Im-
plcnimtations," IEEE Trtlrts. ,41ito. Corrtrol, vol. AC-31. 1986, pp. 907-919.
VEIIIIIEST, E. I. A N D A. H . HADMI). "Filtering and Implementation for Air-to-Air Target
Tracking," Proc. Arnrricarr Corrrrol Cor!feretrce, Junc 1988.
VERIIIEST, E. I . A N D A. H . HADL)AII."Approximate Nonlinear Filters for Piecewise Linear
Models," Proc. 2Otir A I I I IC. o r d O I I It$. Sci. arld Sys., March 1986.
VIDYASACAR, M., "The Graph Metric for Unstable Plants and Robustness Estimates for
Feedback Stability," IEEE Trntrs. otr Automatic Control, vol. AC-29, 1984, pp. 403-417.
VINH,N . X. A N D C. F. L I N ,"Optimal Maneuvers of Supersonic Speeds in a Vertical Plane,"
23rd Israel Atrrrrral Conf: orr Aviatiotr artd Astrona~itics, Haifa &- Tel-Aviv, Israel, February
1981.
VINOD,H. A N D A. ULLAH, Recetlt ,4dvatrces iw Regressiorr iblethods, vol. 41. New York: Marcel
Dekker, 1981.
VISSER,H. G., H . J. KELLEY, A N D E. M. CLIFF, "Energy Management of Three-Dimensional
Minimum-Time Intercept," 12th .41.4A Atmospheric Flight Mechanics C o n j , August 1985.
Also in J . Guid., Corrtrol arrd Dyrrnmics, vol. 10, no. 6, 1987, pp. 574-580.
VRIENDS, J. H. J. M.. "Missile Guidance and Control," in Systems G. Corrtrol Encyclopedia, ed.
M. G. Singh, vol. 5. Oxford, Great Britain: Pergamon Press, 1987, pp. 3006-3012.
WAITE,W. F., "Simulations for System Design Modifications," Proc. Srirntner Computer Sitnu-
latiorr Cot$, July 1983, pp. 206-212.
WAITES,H., B. GARDNER, A N D K. PETERSON, "Guidance, Navigation, and Control," Aero-
space America, December 1988, pp. 62-63.
WALTON, J. D . , Radorne Ettgineering Handbook: Design and Principles. New York: Marcel Dek-
ker, Inc., 1970.
WANG,K., "Optimal Control and Estimation for Grazing Angle Problem," Proc. American
Corrtrol Cot$, June 1988, pp. 438-439.
WEHRENU, W. R. A N D G. MEYER,"Flight Tests ofthe Total Automatic Flight Control System
(TAFCOS) Concept o n a DHC-6 Twin Otter Aircraft," NASA TP-1313, 1980.
WEI, K . C. A N D A. E. PEARSON, ''ControI Law for an Intercept System," J. of G~ridarzcearrd
Control, September-October 1978, pp. 298-3M.
WEIDEMANN, H. L., "Guidance and Control," in Guidance and Control for Tactical Aircraft,
Missiles, and Armametzt Systems, UCLA Dept. of Engineering and Science Short Course
Programs, Engineering 839.19, 1983-1986.
WESTON,A. R., E. M. CLIFF,A N D H. J. KELLEY, "On Board Near-Optimal Climb-Dash
Energy Management," 1. Guidance, Control, arid Dyrtamics, vol. 8, no. 3, 1985, pp. 320-
324.
WIDROW, G. A N D M. E. HOFF,"Adaptive Switching Circuits," IRE Westenz Electroriic Shou,
and Cotrventior~Record, Pt. 4, 1960, pp. 96-104.
WILDBERGER, A. M. A N D M. W. HUNT, "A Generic Missile Weapon System Model for
Wargaming," Proc. Cor$rer~ce on Aerospace Sil~lirlation11, vol. 16, no. 2, January 1986, pp.
64-75.
WILLIAMS, D. E., ET AL.,"Modern Control Theory Design of Autopilots for Bank-to-Turn
Missiles," J. Guid., Corztrol, arrd Dynamics, vol. 10, no. 4, July-August 1987.
WILLIAMS, D . E., ET AL., "Modern Control Theory for Autopilots," AFATL-TR-85-10,
1985.
WILLIAMS, D . E., ET AL., "Design of an Integrated Strapdown Guidance and Control System
for a Tactical Missile," Proc. .41AA Guidance ar~dCoritrol Cor!fererrce, August 1983.
WILLIAMS, D . E. A N D B. FRIEDLAND, "Modern Control Theory for Design of Autopilots for
Bank-to-Turn Missiles," Art~ericar~ Cor~trolCot$, vol. 2, June 1986, pp. 1130-1136.
WILLIAMS, I). E. A N D B. FRIEDLANU, "Design of an Autopilot for Bank-to-Turn Missile Using
Moderii Control and Estimation Theory," Presented at the 5th Meeting of the Coordi-
nating Group on Modern Control Theory, 25-27 October 1983, (Picatinny) Dover, NJ.
WILLIAMS, G., "Optimal Controllers for Homing Missiles with T w o Time Constraints."
U.S. Arm). Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal. AL, Rept. RE-TR-69-20, October 1969.
WISE,K. A., "Optimizing Singular Value Robustness Measures in a Conventional Bank-to-
Turn Missile Autopilot Ilcsign," A1.4'4 Guid., .Yaljav., ar~dCorztrol Cord, August 1988(a),
pp. 296-306.
WISE,K. A., "A Bank-to-Turn Missile Autopilot Design Approach Using LQGILTR Con-
trol Theory," Paper No. 88-0336. 26th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 1988(b).
WITTE,R. W. A N D R. L. MCDONALD, "STANDARD Missile: Guidance System Develop-
ment," Johrrs Hopkirrs APL Techrrical Digest, vol. ?, no. 4, 1981, pp. 289-cnd of article.
YANG.C.. Y. BAR-SIIALUM. AM> C . F. LIN,"Mancuvcring Target Tracking Using Image
Enhanced Measurements." Proc. Atriericar~Corzrrol C o r ~ fJune , 1991.
YANC;,C . A N I ) C . F. LIN. "Maneuvering Target Tracking with Data Fusion," American
G N C Corp. Report No. 91-17. January 1991.
YAVNAI. A. A N I ) I. Y. BAIL-ITZIIACK, "Self-Contained Updating of Ground Inertial Navi-
gation System," Israid Jolrrnal of Ter/trzolo,gy, vol. 18, 1980, pp. 304-313.
YORK,R. J., "Improved Time-to-Go Estimation for an Optimal Control Law," in Ad~lar~crd
Analysis.for Furltrc Missiles, Tech. Rept. RG-80-8, 21 November 1979, pp. 323-384.
YOIIK.R. J., "Opti~nalControl for an Anti-Tank Wcapotl," Final Rept., U.S. Army MIII-
AIICOM Contract DAAK 70-78-M-0102, September 1978.
Y O I ~ KR., J . A N I I H. L. I'ASTIIICK, "Optinlal Terminal Guidance with Constraints at Final
Time," J. of Spacccraff arld Rockets. June 1977. pp. 381-382.
Yos-r, I>. J.. L. U . WE(:KESSEII. A N D It. C. MALLALIEU, "Tech~iology Si~rvcyof Radomes
for Anti-Air Honiing Missiles." APLIJHU FS-80-022. March 1980.
YC)CNC;, E. A N I ) L. N. C O I ~ M I E"Missil~
II, Range and Trajectory Analysis (MRATA): Quan-
tifying Missile Pcrforrn;cncc to Aid in llecision Making." 1985 SCSC, pp. 631-636.
YOCNC;, J . T.. J . M. I'EIII)ZOC:K. I>. L. SEBIIING, A N I ) L. EIIINGEII,
"Dcsig~iand llcvclopment
of the Multifi~nctionFlight Control Rcfcrence System," AGARIl-C1'-349. August 1983,
pp. 12-1 to 12-10.
YOCN(;III:N, F. R.. LLMitiinii~il~g Boresight Errors in Acrodynaniic Radomcs," Elecrro~ricDe-
S I , ~ H . I l e c ~ ~ i i b 20.
e r 1001, pp. 152-157.
YUE,A. A N I ) I . I ' O S T L E T I I W A I ~ ~ E"Hz-Optinial
. Ilcsig~lfor Helicopter Control." Proc. A~rrer-
i e t l ~ lCorrrrol Car!\:. Junc 1988. pp. 1679-1684.

Y C E ~W. I , R., "Fourth Order Predictive. Augmented Proportional Navigation System Ter-
minal Guidancc Ilcsign with MissileiTarget Decoupling," U.S. Patent No. 4,494,202, Jan.
15, 1985.
Y L E I I W. . R., personal communication, 1983(a).
YCEII,W. R.. "Simplified Covariance Analysis for Midcourse Simulation," Proc. Strmrner
Cc~rrrpirterSirrrrrlatio~rCurd, l983(b), pp. 309-313.
Y C E I IW. , R. A N L ) C . F. LIN,"Optimal Controller for Homing Missile," AIAA J . G~rida~rce,
Corrrrol, (trrd Dy~l'lr~rics, vol. 8. no. 3. May-June 1985(a), pp. 408-411.
Y L E I IW. . R. A N L ) C . F. L I N ,"Guidance Performance Analysis with In-Flight Radome Error
Calibration," .+I.+AJ . Crridu~rce,Corltrol, n ~ r dDyrratrrics, vol. 8, no. 5, September-October
1985(b), pp. 666-660.
Y C E I IW. , R. A N I ) C . F. LIN, "Bank-to-Turn Guidancc Performance Analysis with In-Flight
Radome Error compensation," Paper No. 81-1889, Proc. oftlre AIAA Gtridatlce arrd Corrlrol
Confhretrce, August 1984, pp. 715-722.
ZIMES,G., "Fredback and Optimal Sensitivity: Model Reference Transformations, Multi-
plicative Seniinorms, and Approximate Inverses," IEEE Tra~rs.on A~ltomuticControl, vol.
AC-26, no. 2, 1981, pp. 301-320.
ZARCI-IAN, P., "Con~parisonof Statistical Digital Simulation Methods," AGARD-AG-273,
1988.
ZARCHAN, P., "Complete Statistical Analysis of Nonlinear Missile Guidance Systems-
SLAM," AIAA J . Giridarrce and Control, vol. 2, no. 1, January-February 1979(a), pp. 71-
78.
3,
ZAIICHAN, P., "Representation of Realistic Evasive Maneuvers by the Use of Shaping Filters,
J . Guidarrce arid Corrtrol, vol. 2, no. 4, July-August 1979(b), pp. 290-295.
Z ~ o u H. , A N D K. S. P. KUMAR,"An Adaptive Algorithm for Estimating the Acceleration
of Highly Maneuvering Targets," IEEE CDC, 1982, pp. 1133-1134.
 Index
stochastic inputs, 109. 11 1
Advanced air-to-air missile (A.4M)
AAM. See Air-to-air missile (AAM) navigation, guidancc, and control
Accelerating capability, 254 technology, 467-68
Acceleration comvcnsation. 310 Advanced guidance and control s!.stem
Acceleration estimate, updating of, design, 50
608-9 Advanced guidance filter, 440-42
Accelerometers, 14, 176-77, 193 extended Kalman filter (EKF)
Active homing guidance, 324-26 approach, 441-42
Adaptive radome estimation design, statistical linearization approach, 442
520-24 Advanced guidance law in~plemcntation
Adjoint method, 106-1 1 issues, 613-15
applications, 108-1 1 in~plemcntationproblems, 614-15
adjoint model of linear hotning Advanced gutdance laws, 408-81
loop (illlts.), 110 analytical solution of optimal filters
deterministic inputs, 111 and optimal guidance law.
performance sensitivity due to 474-81
target maneuver (illus.), 110 definition, 469
philosophy, 106-8 (ill~rs.),107 optimal ,guidance law survey, 469-74
RMS miss distance error budget Advanccd guidancc system design, 465
automatically generated by analytical solution of optimal
(illll~.),110 trajectory shaping for combined
steps to construct adjoint systcm, nlidcourse and terminal guidancc.
108 562
 command versus semiactive homing, effect of augmented inertial
design and analysis, 544-62 mechanization, 213
complcmcntary1Kalman filtered error improvement, 214, 215 (illus.)
proportional navigation: biased1 Aided inertial navigation systems, 179
complementary PNG. 481-510 inertial navigation systems and
guidance filter design trade-off, external navigation devices
591 -600 (illus.), 180-81
improved time-to-go estimator, Air defense homing system, 401-3
606-9 Air-to-air dynamicslmeasurement
jamming and clutter effects on guided models (illus.), 418
intcrceptor. 609-13 Air-to-air missile (AAM) multiple mode
multimode guidance system design, guidance, (illus.) 273, 281, 283
613-19 Air-to-surface missiles (ASM), 283-84
ocher advanced midcourse guidance Air-to-surface roles and missions,
schemes, 583-91 284-87
other terminal guidance laws. 510-17 close air support, 284
pulsed rocket control, 600-608 deep tactical strike. 285
radome error calibration and defense suppression, 285-87
compensation, 517-44 tactical interdiction. 284
Advanced midcourse guidance schemes, Air-to-surface weapons, 283-84
583-91 ALP. See Attitude-loop parameters
midcourse guidance for boost-sustain (ALP)
propulsion, 587-91 Alpha-beta-gamma filter, 421-24
near-optimal trajectories, 590-91 first-order target tracker, 421-22
singular perturbation, 584-87 second-order target tracker: a-0
Advanced missile guidance system tracker, 422-24
against very high-speed target third-order target tracker, 424
(example) 276, 278-79 Alpha tracker, alpha-beta tracker, and
Advanced multivariable control system alpha-beta-gamma tracker, 443
design, 49-50 Altimeter aiding, 197 (illus.), 200
Advanced navigation, guidance, and Altitude rate estimator (example), 161
control: Altitude sensors, 32-33
concepts, 4-7 American Control Conference, 3
systems, 7-8 Analysis of optimal command guidance
systems design, 10, 12 versus optimal semiactive
Advanced navigation system design, homing guidance, 557-62
445-64 Kalman filter analysis, 558-59
global positioning system accuracy noise inputs, 557-58
improvement, 445-57 performance analysis, 559-62
integrated GPSIIN navigation system, Analytic optimal guidance law, 566-78
457-64 general solutions of optimal
Advanced terminal guidance system trajectory-shaping guidance law,
(table), 470 574-75
AEGIS combat system, 266, 299, 329 horizontal plane guidance, 575-76
AHRS. See Attitude and heading mathematically probing the analytical
reference system (AHRS) solution of the ootimal
Aided inertial navigation mechanization, trajectory-shaping guidance,
213-15 576-78
. . .
advantage of augmented position- optimal solution for air-breathing
velocity inertial, 215 engine or the power-on stage of a
cost and performance improvement, solid rocket engine, 571-73
213 (illus.), 214, 215 optimal solution for the power-off
Analytic optin~alguidance law (cotit.) cost and performance improvement,
stage of solid rocket engine, 213-15
569-71 error improvement, 213
vertical plane guidance, 567-69 Augmented proportional navigation
Analytical solution of optimal trajectory (APN), 475, 476, 488, 501-2
shaping for combined midcourse law, 477
and terminal guidance, 562-83 Autopilot, 16
analytic optimal guidance law, 566-78 Autopilot and airframe, 539-40
discussions. 583 application, 540-44
optimal trajectory shaping guidance, Autopilot response characteristics
562-63 necessary to achieve homing,
problem forn~ulatioil,563-65 65-66
real-time implenlentation and
performance, 578-83
Analytical three-diniensional optimal
guidance law, 474-75
ANISPY-1A radar, 266, 299
Antiradiation homing (ARH), 29, 331
missile guidance, 344-47 Ballistic missile threat. 293
Antiradiation projectile (ARP), 331 Batch process in^, 454
Antisatellite (ASAT) missile. 434 Bayesian formulation. 454
Antiship niissiles. 296 Bayesian rule. 137
Antisubmarine lvarfare (ASW), 294-96 Bcam-rider guidancc, 319-20
Antitank missiles, 296-97 Talos beam-riding midcourse
APN. Srr Augmented Proportional pidance system (cxaniple), 321
Navigation (AI'N) Best unbiased linear estiinator (BULE).
Apollo program, 2, 3 456
Kalman filter, 128, 151 Bias:
A priori information, absence of. 153 m o d c l i n ~ .156-58
Area defense. 287-88, 292 no, 11 = 0. 161-02
cxaniple, 202-93 position. 159-00
ARH. Sre Antiradiation homing (AIIH) rate, h = I , I01
ARP. Src Antiradiation projectile (AIII') Biascd I'NG (BI'NG) algorithm, 480-87
ASAT. S F PA~ltisatellitc(ASAT) aug~nc~lted proportioiial navigation
ASW. Scr Antisubmarine warfare (ANI'), 488
(ASW) implementation. 488
Asymptotic system performance. optimal, 487-88
553-54 ( l l l l l ~ . ) ,555 simplified suboptimal BI'NG
ATLAS missile, 178 algorithm:
Atmospheric noise, 558 \vithout pursucr accclcration
U A ~ Mj49-5(J
+ fccdback. 492
Attitudc and heading rcfcrcncc systctii \\.it11 pursucr nccclcration feedback.
(AHIIS), 311 49 1
Attitudc-loop paralnctcrs (All'). 531. suboptimal BI'NG algorithm:
533-34 without pursucr accclcration
Attitudc pursuit (direct guidancc), frcdback [suboptimal guidaticc
357-58 (SOG)]. 489-91
Augmented inertial n~cchanization, with pursuer acceleration fccdback.
effect of. 213-15 489
advantages of augnicntcd position- Birdies, 400
velocity inertial, 215 BI'NG. Set Biased I'NG (BIJNG)
BULE. Sct. Best unbiased linear in con~plerr~cntary tilter. 483-86
estimator (I3ULE) in complementary LOS anglc and
LOS ratc estimator, 486-88
in coniplctiicntary LOS rate
cstinlator, 483-84
conventiotial LING algorithm. 486
Command guidance, 313-16
C.41lET. Scv Covariance analysis multimodc guidance using, 389
describing fi~nctiontechnique Command gi~idancedynamics, 546-48
(CADET) Comniand guided system (forward
Monte Carlo and statistical time) (ill~rs.),546
linearization with adjoint method Command midcourse guidance. 290
qiialitative con~parison,120-22 Command to line-of-sight (CLOS)
cost comparison for linear and guidance 299, 312-16, 318-19,
nonlinear systems (illrrs.), 123 348
nonlinear stochastic systems analyzing Command versus semiactive homing
and evaluating tool, 116 guidance design and analysis,
CCI3. Src, Charge coupled devices 544-62
(CCW analysis of optimal command
C D U . See Control and display unit guidance versus optimal
(CUU) scniiactive homing guidance,
CEP. Seij Circul.ir error probability 357-62
(CEP) miss-distance analysis for command
Center-of-gravity (CG) latcral guidance, 550-57
acceleration, estimation modeling, 51-1-50
(example), 160 Comparison of statistical digital
Center-of-gravity (CG) normal simulation methods (example), 53
acceleration, estimation Comparison of suboptimal guidance
(example), 160 (SOG) and PNG, 505-10
CG. See Center-of-gravity (CG) CompIementarylKalman filter approach
CHAPARRAL guidance (example), 331, to estimator design, 1 3 - 7 3
332 first-order, 158-63
Charge coupled devices (CCD), 262 second-order, 163-70
Circular error probability (CEP), 261 third-order, 170-75
CIWS. See Close-in-weapon system CompIementarylKalman filtered
Classical versus modern terminal proportional navigation: biased/
guidance and control (illus.), 50 complementary PNG, 481-83
CLOS. See Command-to-line-of-sight - biased PNG (BPNG) algorithm,
(CLOS) 486-92
Close-in-weapon (CIWS) threat. 294 combined seeker-guidance filtering in
Closed-loop analysis for adaptive complementary filter, 484-86
radome estimator, 524-27 complementary PNG (CPNG)
discussion, 527-28 algorithm, 492-501
Close-loop stability and performance, 77 terminal guidance system analysis,
Clutter, 610-13 501-10
effects on guided intercepter, 609-13 Complementary PNG (CPNG)
Colored-measurement noise, 157 algorithm, 492-501
Colored noise, 156 fourth-order optimal CPNG
Colored-process noise, 137 algorithm:
Combined seeker-guidance filtering: with decoupling feature, 496-98
classifications of complementary/ with target acceleration bias
Kalman filtered PNG, 486 estimate, 498
Complementary P N G (CPNG) (cont.)
optimal, with complementary:
LOS angle and LOS rate estimator,
495 Data-decoupling algorithm, 462-63
LOS rate estimator, 493 tests and results, 463-64
second-order optimal CPNG Data handling system (DHS), 231
algorithm, 495 (illus.), 235
simplified suboptimal C P N G Data processing, 188
algorithm, 500-501 generalized navigation computer
suboptimal C P N G algorithm, (illus.), 188
498-500 Defense and offense systems, 392-404
third-order optimal C P N G algorithm, low-altitude air defense systems,
495-96 397-404
Computer frame (psi-angle) approach, performance parameters, 392-97
189 De Gaston-Safonov algorithm, 95
Computer requirements, Kalman filter, Design algorithms for advanced
149-53 navigation, guidance, and control
software, 152-53 systems, 9-10
square-root filter, 151-52 Designators (laser-based systems),
suboptimal filter, 152 328-29
Computer unit (CU), 199 Design equations for PNG u i t h
Computing, incrtial navigation systems parasitic feedback, 528-44
function, 179 applications, 540-44
Constant-bearing guidance, 359-60 design equation, 530-40
Continuous dynamics, discrete problcm definition, 528-30
measurements: Design rcquiremcnts, 84-86
extended Kalman filter (tahlc), 135 Deterministic inputs, adjoints for, 111
statistically linearized filter (table), 136 Deviated-pursuitlfised-lead guidance,
Continuous Kalman filter, 129. 131-32 358-59
first-order altitude rate Kalman filter DHS. Sec Data handling system (DHS)
(example). 132-33
Discretc Kalman filter, 129
Continuous-\vavc interferomctcr
n~ultiple-rate(tahlr), 131
homing system, 337-43
and optimal guidance law (illrts.), 546
test of, 344
step-by-step procedure (table), 130
Control and display unit (CDU), 179
Conventional PNG algorithm, 486 Discrete-time system, 431
Correlated acceleration process, 70-71 Divergence Kalman filter, 420
Covariance analysis, 102-6 DME, 33
RMS trajectory profile (ill~rs.),105 Doppler aiding, 195 (ill~ts.),199 (illlrs.)
Covariance analysis describing function Dopplcr radar, 179, 225
technique (CADET). 78 advantages and limitations, 225
CI'NG. Scc Complcmcntary I'NG Doyle bounds, 95
(CI'N C;) Do):lc's inequality. 94
Crossover frequency, 85-86 Drag c o n ~ p c n s a t i o ~363
~.
C U . Scr Computer unit (CU) Draper Laboratory, 180
CUBAN. Scr Cubic miss adjoints Dual-mode guidance, 380
(CUBAN) concepts. 381
Cubic miss adjoints (CUBAN), 534 intcgratcd navigation and guidance
Cubic synthcsis (CUSYN), 534-36 system, 381, 384
CUSYN. Scr Cubic synthesis midcourse plus terminal guidance. 380
(CUSYN) Dynamic lead guidance, 372
 External disturbances, 77
External interface. 195
External navigation aids. 213-29
Earth-fixedlgeographic coordinate aided inertial navigation
( i l l s ) , 185 mechanization, 213-15
transformation (illus.), 185 doppler radar, 225
Earth-to-NAV direction cosine matrix global positioning system (GPS),
(illus.), 186 215-16
ECM. See Electronic countermeasures Kalman filtering, 226-28
(ECM) performance, 228
Effective slope and effective noise, long-range navigation (LORAN). 220
56-57 (ill~ds.),58-59 star tracker, 225-26
derived by minimizing mean square tactical air navigation (TACAN),
error (illus.), 55 217-18, 221
Effective navigation ratio (illus.), 64 terrain contour matching
EKF. See Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) (TERCOM), 220, 222, 225
Electronic countermeasures (ECM), 260 External references, 33-34
Electronic countermeasures (ECM)/
E C C M modeling, 24
Electronic unit (EU), 199
Electro-optical seekers, 7-3
Electro-optical (EO) guided weapons,
33
.-
~
1
Electrostatically supported gyro (ESG), Fading memory filter, 138, 415
178 Kalman filter, 420
Empirical radome slope calculation, Wiener filter, 420
61-62 Fail-operationifail-operationifail-safe
Environment sensing guidance/ (FO-FO-FS), 238
correlation matching, 389-90 Fan-Tits algorithm, 95, 100
EO. See Electro-optical (EO) FCS. See Flight control system (FCS)
Error analysis, 146-48 Fiber-optics guidance (FOG) (example),
Error analysis model development, 303
308-10 Field of view (FOV), 255, 260
midcourse guidance system analysis, Filter computational requirements,
308-9 149-53
ESG. See Electrostatically supported Kalman filter design software, 152-53
gyro (ESG) square-root filter, 151-52
Estimator-controller, combined: suboptimal filter, 152
optimal filters and optimal guidance Filter divergence, 153-35
law, 476-77 and suboptimal design, 155
optimal guidance system (OGS), Filtering:
478-81 and estimation techniques, modern,
Estimator gains, (table) 441 126-28
EU. See Electronic unit (EU) Filter performance, 149, (illus.) 150,
Euler attitude estimator (illus.), 163 (illus.) 152
Expanding memory filter, 415 First-order a estimator using inertial a
Extended Kalman Filter (EKF), 133-35, rate at center-of-gravity
441-42, 444 (example), 164
continuous dynamics, discrete First-order a estimator using inertial a
measurements (table), 135 rate at IRU (example), 161
Extended target detection and First-order altitude estimator, (example),
segmentation, 412-13 163
 Index

First-order altitude rate Kalman filter midcourse, 279-80

(example), 132-33 terminal, 280
First-order complementary/Kalman typical laser-guided weapon mission
filter, 158-63 (example), 280
altitude rate estimator (example), 161 FLIR. s e e ~oiward-lookinginfrared
estimation of center-of-gravity lateral (FLIR)
acceleration (example), 160 FO-FO~FS. ;see Fail-operationlfail-
estimation of center-of-gravity normal operationlfail-safe (FO-FO-FS)
acceleration (example), 160 FOG. See Fiber-optics guidance (FOG)
first-order a estimator using inertial a Footprint, 393
rate at center-of-gravity Forward-looking infrared (FLIR), 30,
(example). 162 184
first-order a estimator using inertial a Four-gimbal mechanism (ill~rs.),193
rate at IRU (example), 161 Fourth-order optimal C P N G algorithm:
first-order altitude estimator with decoupling feature, 496-98
(example), 163 with target acceleration bias estimate,
first-order Euler attitude estimator 498
(example). 163 FOV. See Field of view
first-order sideslip estinlator using Future guidance processing, 401-13
inertial sideslip rate at cetlter-of- missile guidance, signal processing,
gravity (example), 162 407-13
first-order sideslip estin~atorusing technological advances in signal
inertial sidcslip ratc at IRU processing. 40.5-6
(exan~plc).161
first-order velocity estimator
(example), 162
n o bias, b = 0, 161-63-
position bias. 159-60
rate bias, ii = 1 , 161 Gauss-Markov:
ratc estin~ator.162 models. 70, 71
turbulencelgust anglc-of-attack rate process. 157
estimate (csamplc), 160 GI>OP. See Gconlctric dilution of
turbuletlce/gust t.elocity cstinlator position (GIIOP)
Generalized least squares (GLS), 451
(example), 160
Generalized strapdown mechanization,
First-order Euler attitude estimator
199, 201 (ill~ts.),204 (il111.c.).205
(example), 163
Geometric dilution of position (GIIOI'),
First-order sideslip estimator using
33, 220
incrtial sideslip rate a t C G bias and variancc shrinkage, 454-57
(example), 162 Gimbal anglc tnotion, 56, 60
First-ordcr sidcslip estimator using cffccti\re slope and cffcctive noise,
inertial sideslip rntc at IRU dctcrminants (iil~r$.), 5.5
(cxatnplc). 101-02 targct maneuver and n o w causc
First-order solution, 515, 517 (1111~s.).55
First-order targct tracker, 43-1-22 Gimballed incrtial navigation system.
First-order velocity cstinlator (cxatnple), 179, 186, 192-99
162 incrtial sensors on stable platform.
Fixed memory filter. 415 193
Flight control systctn (FCS). 14 tncchanism, 192
and sensing, 22-23 navigation mechanization and crror
timc constant (ill~cs.),64 model, 195. 197-99
Flight phases, 279-80 na\.igation nlodc, 194-05. 196-98
launch, 270 platform alignment modes, 193-94
 system internal and external optimal guidance filter design
interlaces. 105, I97 analysis, 592-93
Gimbal nicchanisrn, 102, 103 Guidancc filtcringlprocessi~ig,45-51
(;imbal/strapdown navigation systems, advanced multivariablc control system
diffcrcncc between, 199 design. 49-50
See a l j o Gimbal versus strapdown classical versus niodcrn guidance and
comparison and analysis control, 50-51
Gimbal versus strapdowti comparison guidance kinematic loop. 45
arid analysis. 200-13 navigation, guidance, and control
ieaturc comparisoti, 200 systeni design rcquirenicnts and
navigation errors comparison. 209-13 design considerations, 48-40
Glint noisc. 47. 75. 557 noisc i~iputs.45-48
Glint noise uyi,,,,, 548 nottnoisc inputs. 48
Global positioning system (GI's), 179, simplified pursuer dynamics, 45
215-17 Guidance kinematic loop, 45
acctlracy irnprovcmcnt. 445-47 Guidancc kinematic loop stability
bias and variance shrinkage, 454-57 analysis (example), 52-53
position-fix navigation, 446-52 Guidance law, 347-79
recursive estimation and Kalman classification (illlrs.), 469
filter, 452-53 comparisoli of (table), 353
ridge regression, 5-11-42 line-of-sight (LOS) angle guidance,
inertial navigation systems updating, 348
217 line-of-sight (LOS) rate guidance,
aided inertial-global positioni~lg 348-19. 35 1-73
system mechanization (illrrs.), 218 sensitivity and comparison, 373-79
measurement principles, 216-17 simultation, 502-5
survcy, 469-74
range, 316
Guidance loop (illrrs.), 37
range rate. 216-17
Guidance loop transfer function with
time, 216
radomc slope bias effect and
overview, 213-16 without radome slope effect, 533
performance, 217 Guidance mission and performance,
pseudo-rangc error budget (table), 268-98
217 operation, 280-98
requiremctlts, 215 performance, 369-79
Globdl positioning systemlinertial phases of flight, 279-80
navigation system Kalman filter Guidance performance analysis with in-
systcm design, 457-64 flight radome error calibration,
Global positioning system pseudo-range 520-28
error budget (table), 217 adaptive radome estimation design,
GLS. See Generalized least squares 520-26
(GLS) closed-loop analysis for adaptive
GPS. See Global positioning system radome estimator, 524-28
(G
S-') Guidance processing, 252
Gravity anomalies, 177 algorithm, 310-47
Guidance, 14 defense and offense systems, 392-404
computer function, 14 future processing, 404-13
Guidance algorithm, 252, 310-47 law, 347-79
direct guidance methods, 312-47 mission and performance, 268-98
preset guidance, 310-12 multiple mode guidance modeling,
Guidance filter design trade-off, 298-310
591-600 processors, 252, 256-68
missile midcourse guidance system single-mode, dual-mode, multimode
analysis, 593-600 guidance. 379-92
Guidance processors, 252, 254-70 Homing controller expansion (HCE),
precision requirements and ' 537-38
achievements, 260-62 Homing guidance, active, 324-26
standard missile guidance system Homing missile controller, 16
development (example), 262-67 Homing missile guidance and control
Talos guidance system (example), analysis (example), 63-65
267-70 Homing of aerospace vehicles, 331, 337,
Guidance system classification, 21-22 344
Guidance tracking filter, 252, 427-30 modes of homing, 324
design approach, 428-30 Homing problems, 397-401
function and requirements, 427-28 Homing system performance:
Guided interceptor, 609-13 desired/actual effective navigation
clutter, 610-13 ratio, determinant of, 52
deception repeater jammer, 613 guidance system time constant, 32
IF seeker in weather condition, 611 HVT. See High-value target (HVT)
jamming and clutter, 607
Guided weapons, 280-81
air-to-air, 281-83
air-to-surface, 283-84
air-to-surface roles and missions,
284-87
surface-to-air, 287 IC. See Integrated circuits (IC)
surface-to-surface, 294 IEEE conference on decision and
Gyros. See Gyroscopes control, 4
Gyroscopes, 14, 177-78, 192-95 IINS. See Integrated inertial navigation
~ y r sensitivity
o gain design (example), system (IINS)
67-68 IISA. See Integrated inertial sensing
assembly (IISA)
Illuminator (radar devices), 328
IMU. See Inertial measurement unit
(IMU)
Inertial guidance, multimode guidance
using, 388
Handover, definition, 299 Inertial measurement unit (IMU), 195
HCE. See Homing controller expansion (illus.). 198
Inertial midcourse guidance, 299, 301
Helicopter integrated inertial navigation Inertial navigation, 176-81
system (HIINS), 241-45 basic functions, 179
accuracy requirements, 241-43 common requirements, 181-84
configuration 1 and 2, 243-45 (illus.), comparison and analysis of gimballed
246-49 versus strapdown, 209-13
Hermite matrix for third-order error analysis, 188-89
perturbed polynomial, 93 error models, 188. 189-92
Higher order system analysis, 62-63 external navigation aids, 213-29
High-frequency dynamics (table), 26 gimballed inertial navigation system,
High-frequency requirement, 85-86 192-99
High-value target (HVT), 261 integrated inertial navigation system,
HIINS. See Helicopter integrated inertial 229-51
navigation system (HIINS) navigation computation and error
HOJ. See Home-on-jamming (HOJ) modeling, 184-92
Home-all-the-way guidance, 379-80 strapdown inertial navigation system.
Home-on-jamming (HOJ), 331, 337, 199-209
344 updating, 217, (illus.) 220
Inertial navigation requirements. 181-84 Integrated inertial sensing assembly
stand-off weapon systems, 182-84 (IISA). 232. 234. 236-41
vehicle and weapon systems, 181-82 configuration of sensor locations, 236,
visual attack systcms, 184 238
weapon dclivcry. 182 configuration versus attitude1
lncrtial position. 186-87 velocity redundancy (table), 238
Inertial reference unit (IRU), 428 effect of gyro dither. 238
primary ti~nction,299 error sources, 240-41
Inertial sensors on stable platforn~,193 acceleration scale factor stability,
alignment nlodes, 193-94 240-41
three-gyrolacccleromctcr (illus.), axis alignment errors, 240
104 data synchronization. 241
Inertial space, 177 input axis bending, 241
Inertial system nlechanization (illus.), noise and filtering, 241
198 performance, 240
Infrared (IR): redundancy management, 238-40
detection, 309 Integrated missile guidance systems,
sensor, 28 245, 249-51
Infrared (IR) guidance. 330 integrated seeker-guidance navigation
Infrared (1R)-guided missiles, system, 249-51
advantages, 281 lntegrated modified PNG and optimal
Infrared homing short-range AAM, controller, 520
508-10 with radome compensation, 520
Infrared (IR) image processor, 310 Integrated navigation and guidance
Infrared (IR) seeker in weather system, 381, 384
condition, 613 Integrated sensinglflight control
Integrated circuits (IC), 261 reference system (ISFCRS), 231
Integrated Doppler, 216-17 (illus.), 233 (illus.), 234
See also Pseudo-delta-range (PDR) geometry (illus.), 232
Integrated GPSIIN navigation system, MlRA system (illus.), 234
457-64 Integrated sensory subsystem (ISS),
data-decoupling algorithm, 462-63 231-32
GPSIINS Kalman filter system Intelligent knowledge-based systems
design, 458-62 techniques, 332
tests and results, 463-64 Intelligent TVIimage, 330
Integrated inertial navigation system Intercept guidance, relative geometry
(IINS), 229, 231-51 and parameters for (illus.), 35
helicopter integrated inertia! Interface information for gimballed
navigation system (HIINS), inertial navigation systems, 197
241-45 (illus.), 246-49 (illus.), 197
integrated inertial sensing assembly Intermediate-frequency requirement or
(IISA), 232, 234, 236, 238-43 crossover frequency, 85
integrated missile guidance systems, Internal interface, 195
245, 249-51 IR. See Infrared (IR)
integrated sensinglflight control IRU. See Inertia! reference unit (IRU)
reference system (ISFCRS), 231 ISFCRS. See Integrated sensing/flight
(illus.), 232 (illus.), 233 (illus.), control reference system
234 (ISFCRS)
integrated sensory subsystem (ISS), ISS. See Integrated sensory subsystem
231-32 (illus.), 235 (ISS)
 Laser guidance (example), 303
Laser-guided weapon mission, typical,
Jamming and clutter effects on guided (example), 280
interceptor, 609-13 Linearized airframe response (table), 25
clutter, 610-12 Linear discrete/continuous smoother
deception repeater jammer, 609-10 (table), 141
IR seeker in weather condition, 613 Linear miniinum variance estimation:
Jam-to-signal ratio USR), 609 Kalman filter, 128-33
Jet Propulsion Laboratory: continuous Kalman Filter, 129,
NASA software contract of, 152 132-33
JSR. See Jam-to-signal ratio USR) discrete Kalman filter, 129
-
Linearlnonlit~earintercept navigation.
guidance, and control processing,
14-18
Linearlnonlinear intercept navigation,
Kalman-Bucy filter, 2 guidance, and control system,
See also Recursive minimum variance 13-23
estimator flight control system (FCS) arid
Kalman filter (KF), 2, 71, 420 sensing, 22-23
analysis, 558-59 guidance system classification. 21-22
modeling and simulation, 18-21
continuous, 131-32
processing, 14
design and perforn~anceanalysis,
Linear radome miss prediction. 57-59
140-48
Line-of-sight (LOS):
design process, 142
angular rate sensors, 33
error analysis, 146-48
guidance, 312-13, 349
noise intensity matrices, selection
of, 142-46 system seeker model, 43
discrete, 130-31, (table) 141 sensors. 32
cstirnation techniques. 126-28 LOAL. See Lock-on after launch
operational considcrations. 148-58 (LOAL)
LOUL. Sce Lock-on before launch
absetice of a priori inforn~ation,153
coniputational requirements, (LOUL)
Lock-on after launch (LOAL). 255
149-53
filtcr divcrgencc, 153-58 Lock-on bcfore launch (LOBL), 254
Long-range navigation (LORAN), 34,
filter performance, 149
179, 220
modeling process noise and biases,
advantages and limitations, 220
156-58
characteristics, 220
simplified, 420-21
Kalman filtering, 226-28 Look-down Doppler radar, 184
LORAN. Scr ~ b n ~ - r a t i gnavigation
e
approach, 227-28
pcrformancc, 228. (illris.) 230 (LORAN)
Kclley-Bryson variational optin~ization LOS. Scc Line-of-sight (10s)
Low-altitude air defense systems.
procedure, 2
397-404
KF. Srr Kalnian filtcr (KF)
Kincniatic equations (illrrs.), 37 air defense homing system, 401-3
further missile dcvclopnicnts, 403-4
Kinematic/rclati\~cgeometry, 34-37
homing problems, 397-401
Low-altitude cruise tiiissilc threat. 293
Low-altitude target cngagcmcnt with
grazing atiglc control (example).
505-00
Low-frequency rcquirctncnt, 84
Laplacc domain. 162 LQG tcchniquc, 2, 470, 471, 472, 473
Largc-scale integrated (LSI), 261 LSI. Src Largc-scalc integrated (LSI)
 extended target detection and
segmentation, 412-13
Maneuver scale factor. 536 future signal processing for, 407-13
Markov process. 71 Missile midcourse guidance system
Matched models versus minimum MSE analysis, 593-97
models, 456 error analysis, 397-98
Maximum-likelihood filter, 415 results, 598-600
MDASE. See Modeling, design, Missile nonalignment, 607
analysis, simulation and Missile range, 396
evaluation (MDASE) Missile sizing, 536
Measurement errors. 77 Missile speed, 396
Medium-scale integrated (MSI), 261 MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, 178
Midcourse guidance, 298-302 MMW. See Millimeter wave (MMW)
boost-sustain propulsion, 587-91 Modeling, design, analysis, simulation
computational scheme, 587-90 and evaluation (MDASE):
near-optimal trajectories, 590-91 cycle, 3
command, 299 linear/nonlinear intercept navigation,
command to line-of-sight, 299 guidance, and control system,
(illus.). 300 13-23
inertial, 299, 301 of navigation, guidance, and control
Midcourse euidance for stand-off processing, 13
"
tactical weapons (example), navigation, guidance and control
301-2 system design and analysis, 45-68
Midcourse guidance system analysis, process, 1
308-9 target signal processing, 23-45
Midcourse phase navigation, guidance, target tracking state modeling, 68-76
and control processing (illus.), Modeling biases, 156-58
308
...
Modeling errors, 76, 146-48
Midcourse plus terminal guidance, Modeling process noise and biases,
380-81 156-58
Millimeter wave (MMW): Modeling and simulation, 18-21
sensors, 29
Miss-distance analysis for command (iil~is.),19
-
computer simulation block diagram

guidance, 550-57 Model with a priori information, 452

asymptotic system performance, Modern filtering and estimation
553-54 techniques, 126-28
system time constant and missile combined complementary/Kalman
acceleration limits, 554, 556-57 filter approach to estimator
Miss distance (MD) and missile lateral design, 158-75
acceleration due to launch error, Kalman filter design and performance
-5n5
-- analysis, 140-48
Miss distance and missile lateral linear minimum variance estimation:
acceleration due to step-target Kalman filter, 128-33
acceleration, 505 nonlinear filtering, 133-38
Miss due to radome slope, 54-56 operational considerations, 148-58
Missile, 178, 262-67 absence of a priori information, 153
developments, 403-4 computational requirements, 149-53
range and function, 297-98 filter divergence, 153-55
Missile attitude, 396 filter performance, 149, (illus.)
Missile footprint, 396 150-51
Missile guidance: modeling process noise and biases,
comparing neural network classifiers, 156-58
411-12 prediction and smoothing, 138-40
Modern multivariable control analysis, C P N G algorithm with LOS
8-9 angle and LOS rate estimator
Modified maximum-likelihood filter, (illus.), 614
424-25 Multiple mode guidance modeling, 298
definition, 425 error analysis model development,
Modified P N G with radome 308-10
compensation, 520 midcourse guidance, 298-310
Monopulse homing system, 343 terminal guidance, 302-8
tests, 344 Multiple model estimation, 137-38
Monte Carlo: Multiple-rate Kalman filter (table), 131
CADET and SLAM qualitative for radar tracking, 443
comparison, 122 Multiresolution spatial integration
cost comparison for linear and (MRSI), 405
nonlinear systems (illus.), 123 Multivariable control analysis. modern,
simulations, 142 77
Monte Carlo analysis, 100-102, 474 adjoint method, 106-11
acceleration limit study utilizing covariance analysis, 102-6
Monte Carlo approach (illus.), design requirements, 84-86
101 general robustness analysis, 89-90
for second-order systems, 95 Monte Carlo analysis, 100-102
theoretical confidence intervals for other performance analysis. 124-25
Gaussian distributed random performance analysis, 78
variable (illus.), 101 qualitative comparison, 121-23
Monte Carlo technique, 20, 78, 92, 111 robustness analysis, 77-78
algorithm, 94, 99 robustness of real perturbations,
robustness margins, 94 90- 100
single-input single-output autopilot, sensitivity and complementary
95 sensitivity functions. 82-83
for third-order system, 94 singular value analysis, 78-87
MRSI. See Multiresolution spatial statistical linearization, 113-21
integration (MRSI) structured singular value, 86-88
MSI. See Medium-scale integrated Multivariable Nyquist stability, 79
(MSI) circuits
Multiniode guidance:
applications, 384-92
developnient of a niultimode/
multiband HOJ system
(example), 391-92 Navaho missile, 187
environment sensing guidance/ Navigation aids, external. See External
correlation matching, 389-90 navigation aids
radar and infrared, 385-88 Navigation computation and error
STANDARD missile-2 upgrade modeling, 181-92
program (cxamplr). 390 coordinate systems. 184-86
using coniniand guidance, 389 data processing, 188
using inertial guidance, 388 inertial navigation systems error
Multiniode guidance analysis, 618-19 analysis and modeling, 188-92
Multimode guidance systcrtl design, position and velocity generation.
613-19 186-88
analysis, 61 8-1 9 Navigation filtering for position and
Multimodcln~ultiba~~d HOI- system,
. velocity estimate (exaniple), 167
dc\~cloprncntoT (exaniple), Navigation, guidance, and control
39 1-92 (NGC):
Multiple guidance system using optimal application to:
 aerospace, 2 45-68
energy management. 2 guidance tiltcri~iglprocessin~, 45-51
industrial nianufacturing, 2 rcquirenictits and design
medicine, 2 considerations. 48
design overview, 1-8 stability and performance analysis,
advanced, systems, 7-8 52-68
inlportance of advanced, concepts Navigation and guidance filtering
and their impact, 4-7 design, 414
history, 1-4 advanced system design, 445-64
outlitic and scope, 8-1 1 practical filter design, 427-42
advanced systems design, 10 radar tracking, 442-44
(ill~rs,),11, 12 spacecraft attitude estimation, 444-45
design algorithms for advanced target state estimation. 414-27
systems, 9-10 Navigation and guidance for position
MDASE of navigation, guidance, estimate, 430-31
and control processing, 8 Navigation and guidance for position
modern multivariable control and velocity estimate, 431-34
analysis, 8-9 complementary filtering, 431-33
processing, 10 differentiation of position
theory, 2 information, 431
Navigation, guidance, and control inertial navigation systems with
stability and performance periodic radar position updates,
analysis, 52-68 433-34
autopilot response characteristics Navigation and, guidance filtering for
necessary to achieve homing, position, velocity, and
65-66 acceleration estimate, 434-40
comparison of statistical digital poisson jinking maneuver, 71, 438-39
simulation methods (example), 53 practical estimator gain design,
effective slope and effective noise, 439-40
56-57 uniformly distributed target
empirical radome slope calculation, maneuver, 434-38
61-62 Navigation mechanization and error
guidance kinematic loop stability model, 195, 197-99
analysis (example), 52-53 error models, 199 (illtrs.), 202-3
gyro sensitivity gain design (illus.), 204
(example), 66-67 mechanization, 195, 197-98
higher order system analysis, 62-63 performance trade-off analysis, 199
homing missile guidance and control Navigation mode, 194-95 (illus.), 196
analysis (example), 63-65 (ill~rs.),197
linear radome miss prediction, 57-59 Navigation requirements:
miss due to radome slope, 54-56 precision-guided stand-off weapon
miss less with periodic radome, 56 (PGSOW), 182-84
noise and target maneuver miss, visual attack system, 184
60-61 weapon delivery, 182
radome error compensation, 66-67 Navigation signal time and range
radome error-induced miss-distance (NAVSTAR), 215
predictions (example), 53-54 Navigation system, 13
radome error slope in guidance NAVSTAR. See Navigation signal time
response time, 66 and range (NAVSTAR)
range-independent noise (RIN) miss, NAV-to-body direction cosine matrix
60 (iiius.), 186
Navigation, guidance, and control
system design and analysis,
Neutrally stable first-order filter
(example), 145-46
NEV. See North, east, and vertical
OGS. See Optimal guidance system
(NEW
Nine-state guidance filtering equation,
75-76 Operational considerations, 148-58
N o bias, b = 0, 161-62 absence of a priori information, 155
Noise: computational requirements, 149-53
glint, 47, 75 filter divergence, 155-57
receiver, 47, 75 filter performance, 149
Noise and target maneuver miss, 60-61 modeling process noise and biases,
Noise-driven time-varying systems, 100 156-58
Noise inputs, 45-48 Optimal BPNG algorithm, 487-88
atmospheric noise, 558 implementation, 488
atmospheric noise U.am4,549-50 Optimal control theory, 2
glint noise, 557 Optimal CPNG algorithm with
glint noise a,,,,,, 548
, complementary:
range-dependent noise, 557 LOS angle and LOS rate estimator,
range-dependent noise u,,, 548-49 495
range-independent noise (RIN), 557 LOS rate estimator, 493
range-independent noise (RIN) u,, Optimal filters and optimal guidance
548 law, analytical solution of,
total angular noise PSD Q,, 550 474-81
Noise intensity matrices, selection of, analytical three-dimensional optimal
142-46 guidance law, 474-76
neutrally stable first-order filter, combined estimator-controller:
(example), 145-46 optimal filters and optimal guidance
QR-' -, x , 146 law, 476-77
QR-' -, 0, 143 optimal guidance system (OGS),
stable, first-order filter (example), 378-81
143-45 Optimal guidance gain time variation
unstable first-order filter (example), (ill~rs.),477
145 Optimal guidancc law, 476-77
unstable open-loop model dynamics, analytical three-din~ensional, 474-76
145 Optimal guidance system (OGS), 478
Nonlinear dynamic systems (illirs.), 18 Optimallnonoptin1a1 trajectory, 581
Nonlinear filtering, 133-38 Optimal shaping guidance law structure
extended Kalman filter (EKF), 133-35 (ill~rs.),580
multiple model estimation, 137-38 Optin~alsolution for air-breathing
statistical linearization technique, enginc or thc power-on stagc of a
135-37 solid rocket engine, 571-73
Nonli~~carities. 77 Optimal solution for the pon'er-off
Nonlinear stochastic systems: stagc of solid rockct engine, 500
analyzing and evaluating tool, 116 Optimal trajcctory shaping guidancc,
Monte Carlo versus CAIIET, 116, 562-63
118 law, general solutions of, 574-75
steps to apply CAIIET to guidancc mathematically probing analytical
systems, 117 solution of, 576-78
Nonnoisc inputs. 48 problcn~formulation, 3 3 - 6 5
Normalized radomc slope (illlrs.), 64 Ordcr reductiot~by truncation, 530-31
North, cast, and vertical (NEV) Ostrowski matrix. 81
coordinates. 193 Outputting, INS function, 179
 PRN. See Pseudorandom binary noise
"Probing Bocing's Crossed
Connections" (Karen Fitzgcrald),
Parasitic fcc~lbacks.43-45 5
Passive hornins. 330-31 Proportional navigation (illtrs.), 23
CHAI'AIIRAL guidance (c?tample), Proportional navigation guidance
33 1 (L'NG), 16, 360-63, 468
1'1111. Src I'scudo-delta-rangc (PIIR) pursuit plus I'NG, 371
PGM. SLY l'rccision-guided munitions system design and analysis, 363
[I'GM) velocity conipcnsated L'NG
Penalty function technique, 99 (VCPNC;). 371
Pert'orrn'ince analysis, 78 Proportional na\~igationguidance (PNG)
Performance comparison in linear law. 477
homing systems, 503 Pseudo-dcltd-range (PI>11), 217
Periodic radonic, less miss with, 54 Pseudorandom binary noise (PRN), 216
(i//ll~.),
35 Psi-angle (computer frame) approach,
Perturbation (true frame) approach, 189 I89
PGSOW. Srr Precision-guided stand-off Pulsed rocket control, 600-606
weapon (PGSOW) Pursuer Parget tracking processing
Phoney data interpretation, 454 soft~vareniodulcs (illlrs.), 23
Platform aligiinicnt niodes, 193-94 Pursuit guidance, 353-38
PNG. S r r Proportional navigation attitude, 357-58
guidnnce (I'NG) plus proportional navigation ~ u i d a n c e
Point defense. 293 (PNG), 360
Poisson jinking maneuver, 71. 438-39
Poisson process, 71
Position and rate estimators with
position and acceleration
measurements (Formulation I),
163-67
Position and rate estimators with
position and rate measurements
(Formulation 2), 163, 168-69
Position and rate estimators with rate
and acceleration measurements
(Formulation 3), 163
Position bias, 159-60
Position error and rate error estimator
with position error and Radar and infrared, multimode
acceleration measurements guidance, 385
(example), 167-68 Radar command to line-of-sight
Position-fix navigation, 446-52 guidance (illus.), 300
Position and velocity generation. 186-87 Radar cross section (RCS), 396
Position sensing, 310 Radar-guided missiles, 281
PPS. See Precise positioning service Radar search mode, 309
(PPS) Radar tracking. 442-44
Precise positioning service (PPS), 216 a tracker, a-P-y tracker, 443
-
Precision-guided munitions (PGM), 252
Precision-guided stand-off weapon
discrete Kalman filter, 442-43
extended Kalman filter, 444
(PGSOW), 182-83 multiple-rate Kalman filter for, 443
mission scenario, 182 (illus.), 183, Radiometer and MMW guidance, 331
183-84 Radome boresight error slope on miss
Prediction and smoothing, 138-40 distance, effect of (illus.), 55
Radome coupling and compensation Recursive minimum variance estimator.
loops, 38-41 See Kalman-Bucy filter
Radome error calibration and Relinearization, 134
compensation, 517-43 Repeater jammer, deception, 609-10
compensation, 66-67, 517-20 Residual data block, 458
design equations for P N G with RF detection, 309
parasitic feedback, 530-46 Riccati equation, 152
guidance performance analysis with Ridge regression, 453-54
in-flight radome error calibration, RIM. See Range-independent noise
520-28 (RIM)
Radome error compensation, 517-20 Ring laser gyro (RLG), 178
example, 66-67 RLG. See Ring laser gyro (RLG)
Radome error distorts boresight error RMS miss distances, 56, 57
(illus.), 38 Robust integrated control law design
Radome error-induced miss-distance process (illtrs.), 49
predictions (example), 53-54 Robustness analysis, 77-78
Radome error slope in guidance general framework, 89
response time (example), 66-67 Robustness measures, various (table), 90
Radome slope, miss increases with Robustness of real perturbations, 90
(illus.), 53 (illtrs.), 97
Range-dependent noise, 557 Root locus, 92
or,,548-49 and SSV, 92
Range-independent noise (RIM), 557
miss, 60
,'rc 550
Range measurement, 216
Range rate (closing velocity), 33
Range rate measurement, 216-17 SAM. See Surface-to-air missiles (SAM)
Range sensors, 32 SAR. See Synthetic aperture radar^
Range-tracking servo. 309 (SAW
Rate bias, h = 1. 161 SDF. &e ~ingle-degree-of-freedom
Rate estimator (example), 162 (SDF)
Rate-sensing feedback, 310 sea-skimming missile, 296
RCS. See Radar cross section (RCS) Search mode, 309
Real-time implementation and Search patterns:
performance, 578-79 raster scan, 309
comparison between optimal sector scan, 309
trajectory and nonoptimal spiral scan, 309
trajectory, 581-82 Second-order a estiri~ator(example),
implementation and simulation of 169
three-dimensional flight, 579-80 using inertial a rate at center-of-
midcoursc phase. 580 gravity, 169
using inertial a rate at IRU, 169
switching phase and terminal phase,
581 Second-ordcr c o n l p l c n i e n t a r y / K a l n ~ a ~ ~
filtcr, 163
vertical launch of tactical nlissiles,
for~rlulation1, 163-67
582-83
navigation filtering for position and
Receiver noise, 75
velocity estimate (example), 166
Recursive cstinlatiot~and Kalman filtcr, position error and rate error
452-53 estimator with position error and
Recursi\rc Kalman filtcr. 420 acceleration measurements
Recursi\*c filter, block diagram (illtrs.), (example), 167-68
416 formulation 2, 168-69
 second-order a cstimator Single-degree-of-freedom (SDF),193
(exanlple). 169 Single-input single-output (SISO), 86
second-order sideslip cstimator feedback control system, 78
(example), 169-70 Single-mode guidance, 379
Second-order optinlal C P N G algorithm, home-all-the-way guidance, 379-80
493 Singular perturbation for advanced
Second-order sideslip cstimator midcoursc guidance, 584
(cxaniplc). 169-70 fast dynamic approach, 587
using inertial sideslip rate of center- medium dynamic approach, 586
of-gravity, 169-70 midcoursc guidance algorithm, 587
using inertial sideslip rate of IRU, 169 near-optimal solution using single-
second-order target tracker: a-p tracker,
pcrturbation technique, 585
422-23
-- --
problem formulation, 584
Seeker block diaeram. 38
slow dynamic approach, 585-86
Seeker gyro-loop bandwidth, 538-39
Singular value analysis, 78-82
Seeker and optimal guidance system
maneuver., 433 -.
block diagram, (illus.) 480 ~

Semiactive (or semipassive) homing, SISO. See Single-input single-output

326-27 (SISO)
guidance dynamics, 546 SLAM. See Statistical linearization with
loop (forward time) (illus.), 5-17 adjoint method (SLAM)
pros and cons of. 339 Monte Carlo and CADET qualitative
Semiactive laser homing, 327-29 comparison, 121-23
Semi-Markov filter, 417, 418 cost comparison for linear and
Sensing, INS function, 179 nonlinear systems (illus.), 123
Sensitivity and comparison of guidance Smoothing, 140
law, 373-79 linear discrete1continuous smoother
Sensitivity and complementary (table), 141
sensitivity functions, 82 Software:
Sequentially correlated noise, 156 Kalman filter design, 1 2 - 3 3
Servo angular positions sensor, 309 SOG. See Suboptimal guidance (SOG)
Short-range tactical missiles, comparison SONAR. See Sound navigation and
of guidance laws for, (table) 352 ranging (SONAR)
SIDEWINDER missiles, 330 Sound navigation and ranging
Signal and noise curve magnitude bode (SONAR), 294-95
plot (illus.), 429 Spacecraft attitude estimation, 444-45
Signal processing: Space-fixed navigation computation, 186
autonomous acquisitionlimage (illus.), 187
processing, 406-7 SPS. See Standard positioning service
missile guidance, 407-8 (SF'S)
technological advances in, 405-6 square-root' filter, 151-52
Simplified Kalman filter, 420-21 SSM. See Surface-to-surface missiles
Simplified optimal guidance law, 477 (SSM)
Simplified pursuer dynamics, 45 Stable, first-order filter (example),
Simplified suboptimal BPNG algorithm: 143-45
without pursuer acceleration feedback, Stable platform, inertial sensors on, 193
492 Stable platform phase follow-up system
with pursuer acceleration feedback, (STAPFUS), 337
49 1 Stability margin computation, 98-100
Simplified suboptimal C P N G Standard missile guidance system
algorithm, 500-501 development (example), 262-67
Singer model, 71 STANDARD missile. 329
STANDARD missile-2 upgrade requirements, 201, 204
program (example), 390-92 Strapdownlgimbal navigation systems,
Standard missile-2 terminal guidance difference between, 199
(example), 305 See also Gimbal versus strapdown
Standard positioning service (SPS), 216 comparison and analysis
Stand-off weapon systems, 182 Structured singular value, 86-88
STAPFUS. Scc Stable platform phase Suboptimal BPNG algorithm:
follow-up system (STAPFUS) with pursuer acceleration feedback,
Star trackers, 179, 225-26 489
advantages and limitations, 226 without pursuer acceleration feedback,
State modeling (mblc), 21 489-90
State-space model for additive Suboptimal C P N G algorithm, 498-500
uncertainty, 91-92 Suboptimal filter, 152
State-space singular values, 92 Suboptimal guidance (SOG), 489-90
Statistical linearization, 111-16 Surface-to-air missiles (SAM), 280
applications, 120-21 defense considerations. 392-93
missile acceleration for target intercept of an ASM, 392
intercept: nonlinear systcm offensive considerations, 393
analysis (illlrs.), 121 target coverage and missile
approsiniation (illris.), 112 survivability. 393-97
statistical linearization with adjoint weapons. 287
mcthod (SLAM), 118-19 Surface-to-surface nliss~les(SSM), 294
steps for using SLAM. 118-19 Surface-to-surface \\.capons, 294
technique. 135 target types, 294
and tools for. 116-17 Synthetic aperture radar (SAR). 28. 261
Statistical lincarization approach, 442 System time constant and nlissilc
Statistically linearized filter, 135 acceleration limits. 554, 5 3 - 5 7
continuous dynamics, discrete
mcasuremcnts (mhlr), 136
Statistical lincarization with adjoint
nicthod ISLAM). 78. 118-20
Stochastic inputs. adjoints for, 109. 11 1
Strapdo~vn.dcfinition, 177 TACAN. Scc Tactical air navigation
StrapdoLvn computcr requirements, 201, (TACAN)
204 Tactical air navigation (TACAN), 33,
Strapdown crror model and analysis, 179, 217-20 (ill~rx.),221
2U4 advantages and limitations, 218-20
computational errors. 207 Talos:
crror model. 208 (ill~rs.),210 direct-guidance application, 333
instrument errors, 204, 206 first Talos h o n ~ i n gsystcm, 335
StrapdoLvn inertial navigarion systcm, terminal guidance, 333. 335-37
170. 180, I')'J-20<) Talos beam-riding midcourse guidancc
conlputcr. 3 1 1 (~I/IIs.).210 (ill~rs.), systcm (cxamplc). . . 321
21 1 Talos g ~ ~ i d a n csystem
c (csamplc).
computer rcquircn~cnts.203. 200 267-OX
error and ~nodclanalysis. 200. 208-9 Talos homing system, first. 3.33. 330
gcncralizcd n1echanization. 190, 201 Target acceleration n~odclitig,71-72
operation flow diagram. 208 (illlts.), Target ccho, 320
21 3 Targeting, 30-31
Targeting sensor dynan~ics.37
Targeting sensors (tahl(,). 31
Strapdown navigation colnputcr, 201 Target nlancuvcr, unifort~~ly distributed.
(ill~rs.),208 (ill~rs.).200 69-70. 434-37
Target maneuver co~npcnsation,363 problem formulation, 512-13
Target noise and target maneuver terminal guidance law based on a
rnodclittg. 68-60 perturbation technique (example),
corrclatcd accclcratiot~process, 70-71 312
-

other targct accclcratior~modeling, T ~ r t n i n guidance

~~l law based on a
71-72 perturbation technique (example),
Targct rccog~litionusing neural- 5 I2
network-based algorithms, Terminal guidancc system analysis,
400- 1 1 309- 10, 501 - 10
Targct signal processing, 23-45 applicatio~tto infrared homing short-
Kinematic/rclative geometry, 34-37 ranyc- AAM, 508, 510
targeting. 30-34 augmented proportional navigation
targeting sensor dytlamics, 37-45 (AI'N), 501
Targct state csti~~iation. 414 conlpariso;l of suboptimal guidance
alpha-beta-garnma filter, 420-23 (SOG) and PNG, 505-10
comparison of target tracking filters, guidancc law simulation, 502-5
424-26 performance comparison in linear
Kalman filter, 419 homing systems, 505-8
modified maximum-likelihood filter, Terminally guided submunitions
423-24 (TGSM), 262
simpliticd Kdrnan filter, 419-20 Terminally guided submunitions
targct tracking filter, 415-16 (TGSM) guidancc (exa~nple),
summary, 416-18 305-8 (ill~u.),309
two-point estrapolator, 424 Terminal phase navigation, guidance,
Wiener filter, 420 and control processing (illus.),
Target tracker (seeker) modeling, 41 309
Target tracking filter, 415 Terrain contour matching (TERCOM),
adaptive filtering, 419 179, 220, 222-25, 312
comparison of, 423-27 advantages and limitations, 223, 225
accuracy, 4 5 - 2 6 TERRIER, 266. 301
computer requirements, 25-26 TGSM. See Terminally guided
tilrer implementation, 418-19 submunitions (TGSM)
summary of various types of Third-order complementary/Kalman
stochastic filters, 416-18 filter, 170-75
Target-tracking processing (illus.), 27 formulation 1, 170-74
Target-tracking sensors, 27-30, 414 trajectory estimation (example),
Target tracking state modeling, 68-76 173-74
target noise and target maneuver formulation 2, 174-75
modeling, 68-72 Third-order optimal CPNG algorithm,
three-dimensional intercept state 495-96
modeling, 74-73 Third-order target tracker, 424
two-dimensional target tracking state Three-dimensional flight:
modeling, 72-73 implementation and simulation of,
TARTAR, 266, 299, 301 579-80
Taylor series, 111 midcourse ~ h a s e ,580
Television (TV)/video, 29 switching phase and terminal phase,
TERCOM. See Terrain contour 581
matching (TERCOM) Three-dimensional intercept state
Terminal guidance, 302-8 modeline.-. 74-76
definition, 302 nine-state guidance filtering equation,
Terminal guidance laws, 510-17 75-76
optimal conditions, 513-14 twelve-state guidance law design
optimal solution, 514-17 modeling equation, 74-73
Three-gimbal mechanism (illus.), 193
Thrust vector command generator, 308
Thrust vector controller, 308
U-D covariance factorization, 154
Time-correlated noise, 156
U D U T algorithms, 151
Time domain concept, 2 UHSIC. See Ultra-high-speed integrated
Time measurement, 216 circuit (UHSIC)
Time-to-go estimator, improved, 606-9 Ultra-high-speed integrated circuit
algorithm, 606-7 (UHSIC), 261
estimation of time to go, 606 Unmodeled dynamics, 77
missile nonalignment, 607 Unstable first-order filter (example), 147
updating of acceleration estimate, q-+ 0, 147
608-9 r -+ 0, 147
Total angular noise PSI Q,, 550 Unstable open-loop model dynamics,
Tracking,
- 414 145
Tracking accuracy, comparison of,
425-26
computer requirements, comparison
of, 426-27
Tracking error guidance system seeker
model, 42-43 VCPNG. See Velocity compensated
Tracking filter, 308 proportional navigation guidance
Tracking mode, 309 (VCPNG)
Tracking sensorlguidatlce comparisons, Vehicle systems, 181-82
27-30 Velocity compensated proportional
Tracking via the missile (TVM), 317 navigation guidance (VCPNG),
Track-while-scan radar, 318 371
- -

TRG. See Tuned rotor gyro (TRG) Velocity pursuit guidance, 358
Trajectory dynamics model, and Velocity vectors, 186-87
equivalent (ill~rs.),46 Vertical launch of tactical missiles,
Trajectory estimation, 173-74 582-83
True frame (perturbation) approach, 189 Vertical plane guidat~ce,567-69
Tuned rotor gyro (TRG), 178 Very hi$h-sped integrated circuits
Turbulencelgust anglc-of-attack rate (VHSIC), 261
estimation (example), 160 Very large-scale integrated (VLSI)
Turbulencelgust velocity estimator circuits, 261
(example), 160 VHSIC. SEEVery high-speed integrated
TV. Srr Television (TV) circuits (VHSIC)
T V detcction, 309 Video-tracking servo, 310
TVM. Srr Tracking via the missile Visual attack systems, 184
VLSI. See Very large-scale integrated
(TVM)
Twelve-state guidance law dcsign (VLSI) circuits
modclitig equation. 74
2DF. Src Two-degrees-of-frcedorn
gyros (21lF)
Two-degrecs-of-frccdon~ (2DF) gyros,
193 Weapotis, guided:
Two-dimetisiotial target tracking state air-to-air. 280, 281-83
modeling, 72-73 air-to-surfacc, 283-84
Two-point extrapolator, 425 air-to-surfacc roles and missions,
Two-radar command guidance. 317-19 284-87
 close air support. 284 White excitation (maneuver) noise, 420
deep tactical strike. 285 White-no~se, 156
defense suppression, 285 sequence, 76
tactical interdlction. 284 W~cncrfilter, 152, 410
surface-to-air, 287 (illus.), 288-92
Weapon systems, 181-84
delivery, nav~gationrequirements, 182
breakthroughs in, guidance, 261-62
stand-off, 182-84 Zero effort miss, 366
White Gaussian state, 156 Zero-order solution. 514