A composite three-dimensional (3D) missile guidance law is proposed for manoeuvering targets with the consideration of the first-order autopilot dynamics without any linearization. This guidance law consists of a backstepping controller and a feedforward compensation based on disturbance observers. In this control scheme, the unknown target acceleration is regarded as part of the lumped disturbance, estimated by a disturbance observer, and then feedforward compensated. The backstepping controller is introduced to deal with unmatched disturbances. Moreover, both the nonlinear disturbance observer (NDOB) and the generalized proportional integral observer (GPIO) are employed in the derivation. Simulation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed guidance law, and compare the guidance performance of the two composite guidance laws with different disturbance observers.
AdlerFP (1956) Missile guidance by three-dimensional proportional navigation. Journal of Applied Physics27(5): 500–507.
2.
BeckerK (1990) Closed-form solution of pure proportional navigation. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems26(3): 526–533.
3.
CarnevaleDPossieriCTornambèA (2018) On “over-sized” high-gain practical observers for norlinear systems. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica5(3): 691–698.
4.
ChenWHYangJGuoLLiSH (2016) Disturbance-observer-based control and related methods - an overview. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics63(2): 1083–1095.
5.
DingSHZhangZXChenXY (2013) Guidance law design based on non-smooth control. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control35(5): 1116–1128.
6.
DuRMengKZhouDLiuJ (2015) Design of three-dimensional nonlinear guidance law with bounded acceleration command. Aerospace Science and Technology46: 168–175.
7.
GuelmanM (1971) A qualitative study of proportional navigation. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems7(4): 637–643.
8.
GuelmanM (1976) The closed-form solution of true proportional navigation. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems12(4): 472–482.
9.
GuelmanMShinarJ (1984) Optimal guidance law in the plane. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics7(4): 471–476.
10.
GuoLCaoSY (2014) Anti-disturbance control theory for systems with multiple disturbances: a survey. ISA Transactions53(4): 846–849.
11.
HayounSYWeissMShimaT (2016) A mixed L2/Lα differential game approach to pursuit–evasion guidance. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems53(6): 2775–2788.
12.
HeSMLinDF (2016) Guidance laws based on model predictive control and target manoeuvre estimator. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control38(12): 1509–1519.
13.
HeSMWangWWangJ (2016) Three dimensional impact angle guidance laws based on model predictive control and sliding mode disturbance observer. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control138(8): 081006-1–081006-11.
14.
HollowayJKrsticM (2016) Predictor observers for proportional navigation systems subjected to seeker delay. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology24(6): 2002–2015.
KumarSRWeissMShimaT (2017) Minimum effort intercept angle guidance with multiple obstacle avoidance. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics41(6): 1355–1369.
17.
LiCYJingWX (2008) Geometric approach to capture analysis of pn guidance law. Aerospace Science and Technology12(2): 177–183.
18.
LiSHYangJChenXSChenWH (2014) Disturbance Observer Based Control Methods and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
19.
LinYPLinCLLiYH (2013) Development of 3-D modified proportional navigation guidance law against high-speed targets. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems49(1): 677–687.
20.
OzaHBPadhiR (2012) Impact-angle-constrained suboptimal model predictive static programming guidance of air-to-ground missiles. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics35(1): 153–164.
21.
SavkinAVHuangHL (2017) Optimal aircraft planar navigation in static threat environments. IEEE Transactions Aerospace and Electronic Systems53(5): 2413–2426.
22.
ShimaTGoOM (2006) Bounded differential games guidance law for dual-controlled missiles. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology14(4): 719–724.
23.
ShinarJRotszteinYBeznerE (1979) Analysis of three-dimensional optimal evasion with linearized kinematics. Journal of Guidance and Control2(5): 353–360.
24.
ShtesselYBShkolnikovIALevantA (2009) Guidance and control of missile interceptor using second-order sliding modes. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems45(1): 110–124.
25.
SongEJTahkMJ (2002) Three-dimensional midcourse guidance using neural networks for interception of ballistic targets. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems38(2): 404–414.
26.
SunHBLiSHYangJZhengWX. Global output regulation for strict-feedback nonlinear systems with mismatched nonvanishing disturbances. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control25(15): 2631–2645.
27.
TianRLiYRenZ (2011) vision-based adaptive guidance law for intercepting a manoeuvring target. IET Control Theory and Applications5(3): 421–428.
28.
TiwariPKVoraPSriinivasanSBhattacharjeeRN (2005) 3-D modified proportional navigation guidance law based on a total demand vector concept. Defence Science Journal55(3): 281–291.
29.
TornambèA (2007) High-gain observers for non-linear systems. International Journal of Systems Science23(9): 1475–1489.
30.
TyanF (2015) Analysis of 3D PPN guidance laws for nonmaneuvering target. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems51(4): 2932–2943.
31.
WangZ (2017) Adaptive smooth second-order sliding mode control method with application to missile guidance. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control39(6): 848–860.
32.
WeiXJChenN (2014) Composite hierarchical anti-disturbance control for nonlinear systems with DOBC and fuzzy control. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control24(2): 362–373.
33.
WeissMShimaT (2015) Optimal linear-quadratic missile guidance laws with penalty on command variability. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics38(2): 226–237.
34.
YangCDChenHY (2001) Three-dimensional nonlinear H∞ guidance law. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control11(2): 109–129.
35.
YangCDYangCC (1996) Analytical solution of 3D true proportional navigation. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems32(4): 1509–1522.
36.
YangCDYehFB (1988) Optimal proportional navigation. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics11(4): 375–377.
37.
YangCDYehFBChenJH (1987) The closed-form solution of generalized proportional navigation. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics10(2): 216–218.
38.
YangJChenWHLiSHGuoLYanY (2017) Disturbance/uncertainty estimation and attenuation techniques in PMSM drives - a survey. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics64(4): 3273–3285.
39.
YuanPJChernJS (1992) Ideal proportional navigation. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics15(5): 1161–1165.
40.
YuanYBZhangK (2015) Design of a robust guidance law via active disturbance rejection control. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics26(2): 353–358.
41.
ZhangZXLiSHLuoS (2013) Composite guidance laws based on sliding mode control with impact angle constraint and autopilot lag. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control35(6): 764–776.
42.
ZhangZXManCYLiSHJinS (2016) Finite-time guidance laws for three-dimensional missile–target interception. Journal of Aerospace Engineering230(2): 392–403.
43.
ZhaoYChenJBShengYZ (2016) Terminal impact angle constrained guidance laws using state-dependent Riccatti equation approach. Journal of Aerospace Engineering229(9): 1616–1630.
44.
ZhengQGaoLQGaoZQ (2007) On stability analysis of active disturbance rejection control for nonlinear time-varying plants with unknown dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2007, pp. 3501–3506.
45.
ZhouDSunSTeoKL (2009) Guidance laws with finite time convergence. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics32(6): 1838–1846.
