Homing Missile Guidance and Control at JHU/APL

1. Homing Missile Guidance and Control at JHU/APL SAE Aerospace Control & Guidance Systems Committee Meeting #97 March 1-3, 2006 Uday J. Shankar, Ph. D. Air & Missile Defense Department 240-228-8037; uday.shankar@jhuapl.edu

2. Abstract This presentation discusses the GNC research at the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Group at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) is one of five institutions at the Johns Hopkins University. APL is a not-for-profit research organization with about 3600 employees (68% scientists and engineers). Our annual revenue is on the order of $670m. The Air and Missile Defense Department is a major department of APL involved with the defense of naval and joint forces from attacking aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. The major thrust of the GNC group is the guidance, navigation, and control of missiles. Our mission is to Integrate sensor data, airframe and propulsion capabilities to meet mission objectives. We are involved with GNC activities in the concept stage (design, requirements analysis, algorithm development), detailed design (hardware, software), and flight test (pre-flight predictions, post-flight analysis, failure investigation). The Advanced Systems section within the GNC group is involved with several projects: boost-phase interception of ballistic missiles, discrimination-coupled guidance for midcourse intercepts, Standard Missile GNC engineering, Kill Vehicle engineering, integrated guidance control, swarm-on-swarm guidance, and rapid prototyping of GNC algorithms and hardware. We discuss two examples. The first is the swarm-on-swarm guidance. This framework can be used to solve guidance problems associated with several missile defense scenarios. The second is the application of dynamic-game guidance solutions. This has applications in terminal guidance of a boost-phase interceptor and the discrimination-coupled guidance of terminal homing of a midcourse interceptor. We discuss in more detail the problem of terminal guidance of a boost-phase interceptor. The problem is formulated and a closed-form solution is offered. UJS-SAE-030106

3. Divisions ofThe Johns Hopkins University School of Arts & Sciences Whiting School of Engineering School of Professional Studies in Business & Education School of Hygiene & Public Health School of Medicine School of Nursing Applied Physics Laboratory Nitze School of Advanced International Studies Peabody Institute UJS-SAE-030106

4. Not-for-profit university research & development laboratory Division of the Johns Hopkins University founded in 1942 On-site graduate engineering program in 8 degree fields Staffing: 3,600 employees (68% scientists & engineers) Annual revenue ~ $ 670M Profile of theApplied Physics Laboratory UJS-SAE-030106

5. Air & Missile DefenseAdvancing Readiness & Effectiveness of US Military Forces Key Programs: • Cooperative Engagement Capability • Ballistic Missile Defense • Standard Missile • AEGIS • Area Air Defense Commander • Ship Self Defense Critical Challenge 1: Defend naval & joint forces from opposing aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles Critical Challenge 2:Optimally deploy & employ multiple weapons systems to maximize defense of critical assets such as military forces, civilian population centers, airfields & ports in overseas theaters & in the United States UJS-SAE-030106

6. Integrate Sensor Data, Airframe and Propulsion Capabilities to Meet Mission Objectives • Intercept the Target • Maintain Stable Flight • Ensure Seeker Acquisition & Track • Minimize Noise and Disturbance Sensitivities Concept Development Detailed Design Flight Testing • System concept trade studies • GNC requirements analyses • Algorithm research • Real-time distributed • simulation • Component modeling • 6 DOF development & verification • GNC algorithm development • Stability analysis • Flight control hardware testing • Evaluation of missile electrical systems • System performance analyses • Distributed simulation • Hardware-in-the-loop • Preflight performance prediction • Post-flight evaluation • Failure Investigation GNC Group: Roles GPS Other Sensors Guidance & Navigation Solution Guidance Law Airframe/ Propulsion Flight Control Target Motion Missile Seeker* Primary Responsibilities Missile Motion Cooperative Efforts Autopilot Loop Inertial Sensors Homing Loop * Primary responsibility for seeker dynamics and radome effects UJS-SAE-030106

7. Standard Missile Discrimination-Coupled Guidance • SM-3 Development • INS/GPS analysis • Flight control improvements • 21” Standard Missile • SM-6/Future Missile Studies • Inflight alignment • GNC studies • Flight Test • 6 DOF replication • Failure investigation • Hardware fault insertion RV, Booster, ACS, Jammer, Decoys, … Contain Likely RV Objects within FOV Boost-Phase Intercept Studies and GNC Algorithm Research Maneuver to Keep Likely Objects Within Divert Capability Predicted Intercept Point Uncertainty Basket • Terminal Homing • Optimize KV fuel usage • Satisfy hit requirements Threat Launch Point • Flyout Guidance • Fixed-interval guidance • Minimize KV handover errors despite highly uncertain PIP KV G&C • SM-3 Kill Vehicle • Flight test performance assessment • ACS design options • Advanced pintle 6 DOF, G&C design Radar Track • Intercept Point Prediction • Uncertain boost profile and temporal events Integrated Guidance & Control (IGC) Target Motion Swarm-on-Swarm Guidance and Control Research Sensor / detector element Sensor / detector element Autopilot Engager Swarm Lethal footprint Track Track Airframe / Propulsion Target Sensors Rapid GNC Prototyping Guidance Law Guidance Filter CVBG (Raid) Defense Designate Designate Rapid Prototype Testbed Mitigate Raid Attack Vulnerability via Cooperative Missiles Analysis Simulation (not real-time) Sensor Signals Fin Commands G&C Real-time Implementation G&C Algorithms Inertial Navigation Missile Motion Processor 1 via dynamic-game optimization Asset Sensor Signals Fin Commands 6-DOF Airframe, Sensor & Environment Models Expected benefit of employing cooperative missile swarms is increased performance robustness and mission flexibility Remaining 6-DOF (real-time) CG PC or UNIX processor CVN ASCM Processor 2 GNC Group: Current Efforts UJS-SAE-030106

8. Example GNC Research at APL

9. Sea-Surface Asymmetric Adversaries (S2A2) Multi-KV for BPI Mini-Missiles Effect A Volume Kill Via Increased Control Space Threat Trajectory Uncertainty Manage Information Uncertainty via Increased Control Space Speedboat Attacker Swarm Short time to ID & negate threat CVBG (Raid) Defense Threat Launch Point Modified Aegis Platform Overhead Asset Mitigate Raid Attack Vulnerability via Cooperative Missiles MaRV CVN CG ASCM Cooperative Multi-Interceptor Guidance Swarm-Guidance: Expected Benefits • Eased centralized control requirements - Remove “chokepoints, delays, etc. • Reactive flexibility / adaptation to threats • Scalability (response insensitive to #s) • Near-simultaneous swarm negation • Minimize chaotic threat response to being engaged • Rapid battle-damage assessment and 2nd-salvo response Swarm-guidance: Guide multiple cooperative missile interceptors to negate one or more incoming threats (“Swarm-on-swarm”) UJS-SAE-030106

10. Notional Sea-Based Boost-Phase Intercept Scenario Predicted Intercept Point Uncertainty Basket Notional Midcourse-Phase Intercept Scenario Predicted Intercept Point Uncertainty Basket • Terminal Guidance - End Game • Aimpoint Selection • Satisfy Hit Requirements • Terminal Homing • Optimize KV fuel usage • Satisfy hit requirements Threat Launch Point • Terminal Guidance • Contain likely objects within FOV • Volume / object commit • Maximize containment • Flyout Guidance • Fixed-interval guidance • Minimize KV handover errors despite highly uncertain PIP • Flyout Guidance • Cluster / volume commit • PIP refinement / IFTU • Energy / pulse management Radar Track • Intercept Point Prediction • Uncertain boost profile and temporal events • Engageability / launch solution • Predicted intercept point (PIP) • Boost-Phase Intercept Challenges • Compressed timelines • Uncertain threat trajectory, acceleration, staging events and burn-out times • Interceptor TVC has fixed maneuvering time ending before intercept occurs • Kill vehicle fuel and g limitations • Midcourse-Phase Intercept Challenges • Complex threat cluster(s) act to postpone identification of the lethal object • Discrimination quality improves with time • Divert capability decreases with time • Guidance must generate acceleration commands prior to localization of lethal object Ballistic Missile Defense Challenges Information uncertainty coupled with time and kinematic limitations pose substantial challenges to ballistic missile defense UJS-SAE-030106

11. Boost-PhaseBMD:Terminal Homing • Improve guidance law zero-effort-miss estimation accuracy • This improves KV V and g-efficiency • Assume that the threat acceleration increases linearly • Improve on the APN concept versus a boosting threat • Solve a dynamic-game (DG) optimization formulation • DG framework provides robustness to threat acceleration uncertainty • Couples the control components of the guidance problem to estimation and prediction quality • Control is less sensitive to threat acceleration uncertainties • Accommodating threat burnout • Employ a burnout detection cue (from the seeker) • Use in estimation and guidance algorithms • Derive closed-form solutions • Prefer closed-form solutions to numerical solutions UJS-SAE-030106

12. Terminal Miss Performance Weight Terminal Miss Control Uncertainties General structure of the control solution Control Riccati Equation Solution EstimationUncertainty Dynamic Game Filter RelativePosition RelativeVelocity ThreatAcceleration ThreatJerk GuidanceLaw BPI Terminal Guidance Solution UJS-SAE-030106

13. Thank You! UJS-SAE-030106