Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-nx7b4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-13T04:43:45.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Guidance and control of standoff air-to-surface carrier vehicle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2019

I. Mir ,
S. Akhtar ,
S.A. Eisa  and
A. Maqsood
I. Mir*
Affiliation:
National University of Sciences and Technology Research Center for Modeling and Simulation, Islmabad, Pakistan
S. Akhtar
Affiliation:
National University of Sciences and Technology, College of Aeronautical Engineering, Risalpur, Pakistan
S.A. Eisa
Affiliation:
University of California, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, Irvine, CA, USA
A. Maqsood
Affiliation:
National University of Sciences and Technology Research Center for Modeling and Simulation, Islmabad, Pakistan
*
*imranmir56@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an open framework, through which, conventional general purpose aerial munitions can be converted into smart munitions. The retrofit consists of a smart adaptation kit (SAK) having a dedicated Guidance and Control Module (GCM). The adaptation kit along with the GCM ensures that the SAK glide optimally towards the designated target. To reduce cost, the number of control surfaces of the SAK has been kept to a bare minimum, which resulted in an under actuated system. The methodology proposed utilises the theory of gain-scheduled control and leads to an efficient procedure for the design of the controllers, which accurately track reference trajectories defined in an inertial reference frame. The paper illustrates the application of this procedure to the design of stabilisation and tracking controller for the SAK. The design phase is summarised, and the performance of the resulting controllers is assessed in simulation using dynamic model of the vehicle. Simulation results show that apart from improved circular error probable (CEP) of hitting the target, munition ballistic range has also significantly increased with the proposed modification.

Keywords

Range enhancement kitTrajectory optimizationControl law synthesisNumeric simulations

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1261 , March 2019 , pp. 283 - 309
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Ressler, D. and Wise, E. Cluster munitions and ERW in Lebanon, J Conventional Weapons Destruction, 2006, 10, (2), p 12.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, M.L. and Teope, K. Reconfigurable Internal Weapons Carriage System for Small FighterAircraft, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2017, p 1859.Google Scholar
3. USAFR, M.W.P. Twenty-first-century aerial mining, Air & Space Power J, 2015, 29, (2), p 129.Google Scholar
4. Lee, S.H. Contemporary American Military Technology and North Korea's Hard and Deeply Buried Targets (HDBTs), Comparative Strategy, 2013, 32, (5), pp 387–401.Google Scholar
5. Singh, A. Demonstrating the capability to punish "Weapons" On Target... On Time!..., Vayau Aerospace and Defence Review, 2016, 3, pp 42.Google Scholar
6. Rigby, K.A. Weapons integration,' Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, 2016.Google Scholar
7. Wise, K., Lavretsky, E., Zimmerman, J., Francis, J., Dixon, D. and Whitehead, B. Adaptive flight control of a sensor guided munition, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2005, p. 6385.Google Scholar
8. Ali, S.U., Samar, R., Shah, M.Z., Bhatti, A.I. and Munawar, K. Higher-order sliding mode based lateral guidance for unmanned aerial vehicles, Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 2017, 39, (5), pp 715–727.Google Scholar
9. Liang, X., Liu, Y., Ding, T. and Lu, H. Adaptive backstepping control for integrated guidance and control design with input constraints, Youth Academic Annual Conference of Chinese Association of Automation (YAC), IEEE, 2016, pp 37–42.Google Scholar
10. Shan, S., Hou, Z. and Li, Y. Optimized online guidance algorithm for the fixed-wing flying robot, 2016 23rd International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice (M2VIP), IEEE, 2016, pp 1–6.Google Scholar
11. Kim, M. and Grider, K.V. Terminal guidance for impact attitude angle constrained flight trajectories, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 1973, 9, (6), pp 852–859.Google Scholar
12. Ratnoo, A. and Ghose, D. Impact angle constrained guidance against nonstationary nonmaneuvering targets, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2010, 33, (1), pp 269–275.Google Scholar
13. Ryoo, C.-K., Cho, H. and Tahk, M.-J. Time-to-go weighted optimal guidance with impact angle constraints, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2006, 14, (3), pp 483–492.Google Scholar
14. Harl, N. and Balakrishnan, S. Impact time and angle guidance with sliding mode control, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2012, 20, (6), pp 1436–1449.Google Scholar
15. Yang, S., Guo, J. and Zhou, J. New integrated guidance and control of homing missiles with an impact angle against a ground target, Int J Aerospace Engineering, 2018, 2018.Google Scholar
16. Vaddi, S., Menon, P.K. and Ohlmeyer, E.J. Numerical state-dependent Riccati equation approach for missile integrated guidance control, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2009, 32, (2), pp 699–703.Google Scholar
17. Ohlmeyer, E. and Menon, P. Nonlinear integrated guidance-control laws for homing missiles, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2001, p 4160.Google Scholar
18. Shima, T. and Golan, O.M. Linear quadratic differential games guidance law for dual controlled missiles, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2007, 43, (3).Google Scholar
19. Shima, T., Idan, M. and Golan, O.M. Sliding-mode control for integrated missile autopilot guidance, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2006, 29, (2), pp 250–260.Google Scholar
20. Paschal, N., Tournes, C. and Wilkerson, P. Integrated terminal guidance and automatic pilot using subspace-stabilization, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, p 4275.Google Scholar
21. Han, Y., Zheng, Z. and Chong, Y. Integrated guidance and control design for guided bomb with terminal angle constraint, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, IEEE, 2015, pp 1344–1348.Google Scholar
22. Kim, Y., Kim, J. and Park, M. Guidance and control system design for impact angle control of guided bombs, 2010 International Conference on Control Automation and Systems (ICCAS), IEEE, 2010, pp 2138–2143.Google Scholar
23. Masud, J., Chughtai, F.A. and Akhtar, S. Part I: aerodynamic data generation and 6 DOF trajectory calculation of a baseline large-caliber spinning projectile, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, 2016, p 0784.Google Scholar
24. Sargar, P., Agrawal, H. and Mohandaas, S. Implementation of real time operating system based 6-degree-of-freedom missile trajectory simulation, Global J Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2017, 13, (7), pp 3121–3143.Google Scholar
25. Lu, P., van Kampen, E.-J., de Visser, C. and Chu, Q. Aircraft fault-tolerant trajectory control using incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion, Control Engineering Practice, 2016, 57: 126–141.Google Scholar
26. Stevens, B.L., Lewis, F.L. and Johnson, E.N. Aircraft dynamics and classical control design, Aircraft Control and Simulation: Dynamics, Controls Design, and Autonomous Systems, Third Edition, 2003, pp 250–376.Google Scholar
27. Finck, R. (US), AFFDL and Hoak D. USAF stability and control DATCOM, Engineering Documents, 1978.Google Scholar
28. Buning, P.G., Gomez, R.J. and Scallion, W.I. . CFD approaches for simulation of wing-body stage separation, AIAA Paper, 2004, Vol. 4838, p 2004.Google Scholar
29. Petterson, K CFD analysis of the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of a UCAV, AIAA Paper, Vol. 1259, 2006, p 2006.Google Scholar
30. Mir, I., Maqsood, A. and Akhtar, S Dynamic modeling & stability analysis of a generic UAV in glide phase, MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 114, EDP Sciences, 2017, p 01007.Google Scholar
31. Roskam, J. Airplane Design, Vol. 8, 1985.Google Scholar
32. Le Roy, J.-F., Morgand, S. and Farcy, D. Static and Dynamic Derivatives on generic UCAV without and with leading edge control, 32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2014, p 2391.Google Scholar
33. Jiang, T., Li, J., Li, B., Huang, K., Yang, C. and Jiang, Y. Trajectory optimization for a cruising unmanned aerial vehicle attacking a target at back slope while subjected to a wind gradient, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 2015.Google Scholar
34. Yoon, N. and Ahn, J. Trajectory optimization of a launch vehicle with explicit instantaneous impact point constraints for various range safety requirements, J Aerospace Engineering, 2015, 29, (3), pp 06015003.Google Scholar
35. He-Fei, T., Jie, L. and Cheng-Wei, Y. Trajectory optimization of airdropped loitering aerial vehicle based on gauss pseudospectral method considering the wind gradient, J Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience, 2016, 13, (7), pp 4390–4398.Google Scholar
36. Jain, S. and Tsiotras, P. Trajectory optimization using multiresolution techniques, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2008, 31, (5), pp 1424.Google Scholar
37. Mir, I., Taha, H., Eisa, S.A. and Maqsood, A. A controllability perspective of dynamic soaring, Nonlinear Dynamics, 2018, 94, pp 1–16.Google Scholar
38. Mir, I., Maqsood, A., Eisa, S.A., Taha, H. and Akhtar, S. Optimal morphing-augmented dynamic soaring maneuvers for unmanned air vehicle capable of span and sweep morphologies, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2018, 79, (1), pp 17–36.Google Scholar
39. Mir, I., Maqsood, A. and Akhtar, S. Optimization of dynamic soaring maneuvers for a morphing capable UAV, AIAA Information Systems-AIAA Infotech@ Aerospace, 2017, 0678.Google Scholar
40. Mir, I., Maqsood, A. and Akhtar, S. Optimization of dynamic soaring maneuvers to enhance endurance of a versatile UAV, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 211, IOP Publishing, 2017, p 012010.Google Scholar
41. Silveira, G.d. and Carrara, V.A six degrees-of-freedom flight dynamics simulation tool of launch vehicles, J Aerospace Technology and Management, 2015, 7, (2), pp 231–239.Google Scholar
42. Maqsood, A. and Hiong Go, T. Longitudinal flight dynamic analysis of an agile UAV, Aircr Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 2010, 82, (5), pp 288–295.Google Scholar
43. Christophersen, H.B., Pickell, R.W., Neidhoefer, J.C., Koller, A.A., Kannan, S.K., Johnson, E.N. A compact guidance, navigation, and control system for unmanned aerial vehicles, J of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication, 2006, 3, (5), pp 187–213.Google Scholar
44. Murtaugh, S.A. and Criel, H.E. Fundamentals of proportional navigation, IEEE Spectrum, 1966, 3, (12), pp 75–85.Google Scholar
45. Zarchan, P. Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2012, Cambridge.Google Scholar
46. Lee, J.-I., Jeon, I.-S. and Tahk, M.-J. Guidance law to control impact time and angle, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2007, 43, (1).Google Scholar
47. Stallard, D.V. Classical and Modern Guidance of Homing Interceptor Missiles, Raytheon, 1968, Cambridge.Google Scholar
48. Hespanha, J.P. LQG/LQR controller design, Undergraduate Lecture Notes, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
49. Dadkhah, N. and Mettler, B. Control system design and evaluation for robust autonomous rotorcraft guidance, Control Engineering Practice, 2013, 21, (11), pp 1488–1506.Google Scholar
50. Etchemendy, M. Flight Control and Optimal Path Planning for UAVs, PhD thesis, MSc thesis, Cranfield University, Bedford, 2007.Google Scholar
51. Sun, L., Beard, R.W. and Pack, D. Trajectory-tracking control law design for unmanned aerial vehicles with an autopilot in the loop, American Control Conference (ACC), 2014, IEEE, 2014, pp 1390–1395.Google Scholar
52. Sujit, P., Saripalli, S. and Sousa, J.B. Unmanned aerial vehicle path following: a survey and analysis of algorithms for fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles, IEEE Control Systems, 2014, 34, (1), pp 42–59.Google Scholar
53. Jamilnia, R. and Naghash, A. Optimal guidance based on receding horizon control and online trajectory optimization, J Aerospace Engineering, 2011, 26, (4), pp 786–793.Google Scholar
54. Moradi, M., Menhaj, M.B. and Ghasemi, A. Attitude tracking control using an online identification and a linear quadratic regulator-based strategy in the presence of orbital eccentricity, J Aerospace Engineering, 2010, 25, (1), pp 71–79.Google Scholar
55. Asadi, D., Sabzehparvar, M., Atkins, E.M. and Talebi, H.A. Damaged airplane trajectory planning based on flight envelope and motion primitives, J Aircr, 2014, 51, (6), pp 1740–1757.Google Scholar
56. Fresconi, F., Cooper, G. and Costello, M. Practical assessment of real-time impact point estimators for smart weapons, J Aerospace Engineering, 2010, 24, (1), pp 1–11.Google Scholar
57. Magazine, A.F. Precision: the Next Gen, AIR FORCE Magazine, 2003, 1: 03.Google Scholar