In this paper, cooperative guidance strategies for the survival of cooperating team of two unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) against two attackers are proposed. The guidance schemes are designed under the assumptions that each UAV is being pursued by one attacker without cooperation with other attacker. The guidance schemes are designed to combat attackers guided either by proportional navigation (PN) or augmented PN guidance methodologies. The attackers are lured onto a collision course with each other such that intra-attacker interception is achieved before the target UAVs are captured. Sliding mode control techniques are employed to satisfy the sufficiency conditions for the survival within a finite time. Due to the nonlinear framework used for guidance design, the proposed strategies remain effective even for the engagements with large heading angle errors. Numerical simulations are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed guidance strategies under various engagement geometries.
SinhaAKumarSRMukherjeeD, et al.Cooperative salvo based active aircraft defense using impact time guidance. IEEE Control Systems Letters2021; 5(5): 1573–1578.
2.
KumarSRMukherjeeD. Cooperative guidance strategies for active aircraft protection. In: American Control Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2019, pp. 4641–4646. DOI: 10.23919/ACC.2019.8814431.
3.
RusnakI. Guidance laws in defense against missile attack with acceleration constrained players. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control Conference, Toronto, Ontario, 02 August 2010-05 August 2010.
4.
PerelmanAShimaTRusnakI, et al.Cooperative differential games strategies for active aircraft protection from a homing missile. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2011; 34(3): 761–773. DOI: 10.2514/1.51611.
5.
ShimaT. Optimal cooperative pursuit and evasion strategies against a homing missile. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2011; 34(2): 414–425. DOI: 10.2514/1.51765.
6.
HeMWangXLinH, et al.Cooperative guidance law for active aircraft defense with intercept angle constraint. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2020; 235: 962–978.
7.
BattistiniSShimaT. Differential games missile guidance with bearings-only measurements. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace Electronic Systems2014; 50(4): 2906–2915. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2014.130366.
8.
BreakwellJMerzA. Minimum required capture radius in a coplanar model of the aerial combat problem. AIAA J1977; 15(8): 1089–1094. DOI: 10.2514/3.7399.
9.
HoYBrysonABaronS, et al. Differential games and optimal pursuit-evasion strategies. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control1965; 10(4): 385–389, doi:10.1109/TAC.1965.1098197.
10.
FonodRShimaT. Multiple model adaptive evasion against a homing missile. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2016; 39(7): 1578–1592. DOI: 10.2514/1.G000404.
11.
ShafermanVShimaT. Cooperative multiple-model adaptive guidance for an aircraft defending missile. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2010; 33(6): 1801–1813. DOI: 10.2514/1.49515.
12.
MagillD. Optimal adaptive estimation of sampled stochastic processes. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control1965; 10(4): 434–439. DOI: 10.1109/TAC.1965.1098191.
13.
RatnooAShimaT. Line-of-sight interceptor guidance for defending an aircraft. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2011; 34: 522–532. DOI: 10.2514/1.50572.
14.
YamasakiTBalakrishnanSTakanoH. Modified clos intercept guidance for aircraft defense against a guided missile. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2011, p. 6421. DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-6421.
15.
BalakrishnanSNTakanoH. Modified command to line-of-sight intercept guidance for aircraft defense. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2013; 36(3): 898–902. DOI: 10.2514/1.58566.
16.
YamasakiTBalakrishnanSNTakanoH, et al.Geometrical approach-based defense-missile intercept guidance for aircraft protection against missile attack. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2012; 226(8): 1014–1028.
17.
GuoYHuXHeF, et al.Triangle interception scenario: a finite-time guidance approach. International J Aerospace Eng2016; 2016: 1–12. Article ID 2942686. DOI: 10.1155/2016/2942686.
18.
CasbeerDWGarciaEPachterM. The target differential game with two defenders. In: 2016 International Conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS), Arlington, VA, 07-10 June 2016, pp. 202–210.
19.
ZhengWFonodRShimaT, et al.Cooperative guidance law for target pair to lure two pursuers into collision. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2018; 41(8): 1687–1699. DOI: 10.2514/1.G003357.
20.
LiangHWangJLiuJ, et al.Guidance strategies for interceptor against active defense spacecraft in two-on-two engagement. Aerospace Science Technology2020; 96.
21.
GarciaECasbeerDWVon MollA, et al.Multiple pursuer multiple evader differential games. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control2021; 66(5): 2345–2350.
22.
GarciaECasbeerDWPachterM, et al.A two-team linear quadratic differential game of defending a target. Mumbai: American control Conference (ACC), 2020, pp. 1665–1670.
23.
SunWTsiotrasPLollaT, et al.Multiple-pursuer/one-evader pursuit–evasion game in dynamic flowfields. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2017; 40(7): 1627–1637.
24.
ZhangYWangXWuH, et al.Impact time control guidance with field-of-view constraint accounting for uncertain system lag. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2016; 230(3): 515–529.
25.
ZhangY-AMaG-XWuH-L, et al.A biased proportional navigation guidance law with large impact angle constraint and the time-to-go estimation. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2014; 228(10): 1725–1734.
26.
KumarSRGhoseD. Sliding mode guidance for impact time and angle constraints. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2018; 232(16): 2961–2977.
27.
LiBLinDWangJ, et al.Guidance law to control impact angle and time based on optimality of error dynamics. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2019; 233(10): 3577–3588.
28.
HuGGuoJZhouJ, et al.Integrated guidance and control of interceptors with impact angle constraint against a high-speed maneuvering target. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2019; 233(14): 5192–5204.
29.
SinghNKHotaS. Three-dimensional waypoint following for fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles in obstacle-filled environments. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2020; 234(3): 640–654.
30.
SalahuddenSDwivediVDwivediPN, et al. Aircraft flat-spin recovery using sliding-mode based attitude and altitude control. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng2020; 235: 924–936.
31.
SinhaAKumarSRMukherjeeD, et al.Three-dimensional nonlinear cooperative salvo using event-triggered strategy. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2021; 44(2): 328–342.
32.
NanavatiRVKumarSRMaityA. Range-error based three-dimensional salvo guidance against stationary targets. In: AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, Reston, VI: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2021.
33.
KumarSShimaT. Cooperative nonlinear guidance strategies for aircraft defense. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2011; 40(1): 124–138. DOI: 10.2514/1.G000659.
34.
KumarSRRaoSGhoseD, et al.Nonsingular terminal sliding mode guidance with impact angle constraints. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2014; 37(4): 1114–1130.
35.
ShimaT. Intercept-angle guidance. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2011; 34(2): 484–492.
36.
NeslineFWZarchanP. A new look at classical vs modern homing missile guidance. J Guidance Control1981; 4(1): 78–85.
37.
ZarchanP. Tactical and strategic missile guidance. Reston, VI: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2012.
38.
SiourisGM. Missile guidance and control systems. Reston, VI: Springer Science & Business Media, 2004.
