Advertisement

Missile–Target–Defender Problem with Incomplete a Priori Information

  • Evgeny RubinovichEmail author
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

On the plane, the missile–target–defender problem is considered, in which a mobile target with a minimum turn radius evades from a constant speed and rectilinearly moving missile or torpedo. For the missile interception, the target uses a defending missile (mobile false target, decoy, strike UAV or AUV). The problem is complicated by the fact that at the instant of launch of the defending missile, the target knows only the bearing of the missile and its speed, while the information about the distance to the missile and its velocity vector is not available. In this work, the optimal program is constructed for the trajectory of the defending missile, which intercepts all the dangerous (from the point of view of the target) directions of possible missile motion.

Keywords

Missile Target Defending missile Decoy False target Incomplete information 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90C29 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Boyell RL (1980) Counterweapon aiming for defence of a moving target. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst V. AES–16:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garcia E, Casbeer DW, Pachter M (2017) Active target defense differential game with a fast defender. IET Control Theory Appl 11(17):2985–2993MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garcia E, Casbeer DW, Pham K, Pachter M (2014) Cooperative aircraft defense from an attacking missile. In: Proceedings of 53th IEEE conference decision and control (CDC), Dec 15–17, Los Angeles, USA., pp 2926–2931Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ivanov MN, Maslov EP (1984) On one problem of deviation. Autom Remote Control 45(8):1008–1014zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu Y, Qi N, Shan J (2013) Cooperative interception with doubleline-of-sight-measuring. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) conference, guidance, navigation, and control and co-located conferences. American Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naiming QI, Qilong SUN, Jun ZHAO (2017) Evasion and pursuit guidance law against defended target. Chin J Aeronaut 30(6):1958–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pachter M, Garcia E, Casbeer DW (2014) Active target defense differential game. In: 52nd annual allerton conference communication, control, and computing, IEEE, pp 46–53Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perelman A, Shima T, Rusnak I (2011) Cooperative differential games strategies for active aircraft protection from a homing missile. J Guidance Control Dyn 34(3):761–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    RL B (1976) Defending a moving target against missile or torpedo attack. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst V. AES–12:582–586Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rusnak I (2005) The lady, the bandits and the body-guards - a two team dynamic game. In: Proceedings of the 16th IFAC world congress, Prague, Czech Republic, vol 36, pp 441–446Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rusnak I, Weiss H, Hexner G (2011) Guidance laws in target-missile-defender scenario with an aggressive defender. In: Proceedings of the 18th IFAC world congress, Milano, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shima T (2011) Optimal cooperative pursuit and evasion strategies against a homing missile. AIAA J Guidance Control Dyn 34(2):414–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shneydor NA (1977) Comments on defending a moving target against Missile or Torpedo Attack. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst V. AES–13:321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weissyand M, Shimazand T, Rusnak I (2016) Minimum effort intercept and evasion guidance algorithms for active aircraft defense. J Guidance Control Dyn 39(10):2297–2311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yamasaki T, Balakrishnan SN, Takano H (2013) Modified command to line-of-sight intercept guidance for aircraft defense. J Guidance Control Dyn 36(3):898–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamasaki T, Balakrishnan SN (2012) Terminal intercept guidance and autopilot for aircraft defense against an attacking missile via 3D sliding mode approach. In: Proceedings of the American control conference (ACC), pp 4631–4636Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zheleznov VS, Kryakovskij BS, Maslov EP (1996) On a catch problem. Autom Remote Control 57(8):1072–1078zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.V.A. Trapeznikov Institute of Control SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations