🚀 3D Missile Guidance Simulation Project

"Tracking a Maneuvering Target Using Four Guidance Methods"

🎯 3D Missile Guidance Simulation | Comparative Study of Intercept Strategies

Simulated and evaluated four missile guidance laws for intercepting a maneuvering target in 3D space:

🔵 Pure Pursuit (PP) – Missile continuously aims at the target's current position.
🟣 Deviated Pursuit (DP) – Pursuit with an angular offset to anticipate the target’s future path.
🧭 Constant Bearing (CB) – Maintains a fixed line-of-sight angle to achieve collision course.
🔺 Proportional Navigation (PNG) – Adjusts missile trajectory based on the rate of change of the line-of-sight.

Key Performance Metrics:

💨 Required Acceleration
🎯 Final Miss Distance
⏱️ Total Engagement Time

The project highlights trade-offs in interception accuracy, agility demands, and time efficiency across different strategies—informing real-time guidance system design in aerospace and defense applications.

📝 Key Parameters

Vₜ = Target velocity🏃‍♂️
Vₘ = Missile velocity 🚀
θ = Pitch angle (up/down tilt) 📐
φ = Yaw angle (left/right turn) 🧭
ε = LOS elevation angle (vertical aim) ⬆️
σ = LOS azimuth angle (horizontal aim) ↔️
D = Distance between missile and target 📏
g = Acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s²) ⏬

🔢 Kinematic Equations

1. Distance Change (Ḋ)

How fast the gap closes

Ḋ = Vₜ [cosθₜ cos(σ−φₜ) cosε + sinθₜ sinε] − Vₘ [cosθₘ cos(σ−φₘ) cosε + sinθₘ sinε]

2. Elevation Rate (ε̇)

Vertical tracking adjustment

D ε̇ = Vₘ [cosθₘ cos(σ−φₘ) sinε − sinθₘ cosε] − Vₜ [cosθₜ cos(σ−φₜ) sinε − sinθₜ cosε]

3. Azimuth Rate (σ̇)

Horizontal tracking adjustment

D cosε σ̇ = Vₘ sin(σ−φₘ) cosθₘ − Vₜ sin(σ−φₜ) cosθₜ

🧭 Guidance Methods

1. 🎯 3D Pure Pursuit Guidance (with Warhead Detonation)

The implemented Pure Pursuit guidance simulation demonstrates the following key characteristics

1. Missile-Target Engagement Parameters
The simulation implements a realistic intercept scenario where:

Missile detonates at 435m from target (lethal radius of warhead)
Target maneuvers with ±3g accelerations
Engagement terminates when warhead can effectively destroy target

2. Acceleration Profile Characteristics
The guidance system demonstrates:

Terminal Phase (Last 5 seconds):
- Acceleration peaks
- Warhead detonation occurs before acceleration becomes physically unrealizable
Mid-Course Phase:
- Sustained maneuvers to counter target evasion
- Energy expenditure remains within missile capabilities

3. Warhead Effectiveness Validation
The 435m threshold was selected because:

Matches real-world missile specifications (Russian SAM systems)
Ensures target destruction while avoiding Physically impossible terminal accelerations

4. Implementation in MATLAB Code
Key modifications from ideal PP:

while miss_distance > 435 % Warhead lethal radius threshold

% ... guidance calculations ...

if norm(relative_pos) <= 435

disp('Warhead detonated - target destroyed');

break;

end

5. Performance Outcomes

Successful intercept within warhead lethal radius
Acceleration limits respected (no infinite growth at D→0)
Tactical realism maintained throughout engagement

6. Comparative Advantage
This implementation shows Pure Pursuit can be:

Effective against maneuvering targets when paired with proper warhead radius
Computationally stable without artificial acceleration limiters
Tactically viable for medium-range engagements

PurePursuit3D.mp4

3D Pure Pursuit Engagement Trajectory

Reasonable Accelerations at the Final Phase

2.Deviated Pursuit Guidance Implementation

1. Core Concept

The deviated pursuit strategy enhances pure pursuit by incorporating predetermined lead angles to anticipate target motion. The guidance law is defined by:

θₘ = ε - Δε

φₘ = σ - Δφ

where θₘ and φₘ are the missile's pitch and yaw angles, ε and σ represent the line-of-sight elevation and azimuth angles, and Δε = 10° and Δφ = 10° are the constant lead angles.

2. Simulation Configuration

The simulation was executed with the following key parameters:

Missile velocity (Vₘ): 1000 m/s
Target velocity (Vₜ): 400 m/s
Initial conditions: 37 km range, 30° elevation, 20° azimuth
Target maneuvers: 3g acceleration in elevation, -3g in azimuth
Time step (Δt): 0.01 seconds

3. Implementation Details

The numerical solution employed Euler integration with these critical components:

Target Dynamics Update:
The target's pitch and yaw rates were calculated based on its maneuvering accelerations:

thetatdot = (3*9.81)/Vt; % Pitch rate from 3g maneuver

phaitdot = (-3*9.81)/(Vt*cos(thetat)); % Yaw rate from -3g maneuver

Deviated Pursuit Commands:

The missile's orientation was continuously updated using the lead angles:

thetam = ep - deg2rad(10); % Pitch command with 10° lead

phaim = sigma - deg2rad(10); % Yaw command with 10° lead

Real-Time Trajectory Calculation:

Missile and target positions were propagated using:

missile_pos = missile_pos + Vm*[cos(thetam)*cos(phaim); sin(thetam); cos(thetam)*sin(phaim)]*dt;

4. Performance Results

The simulation yielded these key outcomes:

Engagement duration: 49.99 seconds
Final miss distance: 425.9 meters
Peak acceleration requirement: 70g

5. Trajectory Characteristics

The 3D visualization shows the missile's curved intercept path, demonstrating how the 10° lead angles created more efficient pursuit geometry compared to pure pursuit. The acceleration profile reveals smoother commands than pure pursuit, though still demanding significant maneuver capability.

6. Critical Observations

Lead Angle Effects:
The 10° deviation angles caused earlier turn initiation, reducing the characteristic "tail-chase" behavior of pure pursuit. This is evident in the trajectory plot where the missile's path curves toward the anticipated intercept point.
Maneuver Trade-offs:
Larger lead angles (>15°) were tested but increased miss distance disproportionately, while smaller angles (<5°) exhibited near-pure pursuit behavior with higher g-loads. The 10° compromise balanced intercept precision and energy efficiency.
Termination Condition:
The simulation automatically terminated when the predicted miss distance fell below 435 meters, simulating the warhead activation threshold of practical missile systems.

7. MATLAB Implementation Highlights

The complete simulation featured:

Real-time 3D trajectory visualization updating every 10 time steps
Continuous calculation of miss distance using relative velocity vectors
Configurable lead angles through the delta_ep and delta_phai parameters
Numerical stability checks at each integration step

% Core engagement loop

while miss_distance > 435

% LOS angle calculation

ep = atan2(relative_pos(2), norm([relative_pos(1),relative_pos(3)]));

sigma = atan2(relative_pos(3), relative_pos(1));

% Apply deviated pursuit law

thetam = ep - delta_ep;

phaim = sigma - delta_phai;

% (Additional kinematic equations continue...)

end

DP.mp4

Deviated Pursuit Engagement Trajectory

Acceleration Commands

3.Constant Bearing Guidance Implementation

1. Core Concept

The constant bearing approach maintains fixed line-of-sight angles while guiding the missile to intercept. The simulation terminates at 425m miss distance to match warhead detonation criteria used in other methods.

Key Equations:

θₘ = atan(-((Vₜ(cosθₜcos(σ-φₜ)sinε - sinθₜcosε))/Vₘcosθₘ) - cos(σ-φₘ)sinε)/cosε)

φₘ = σ - asin((Vₜcosθₜsin(σ-φₜ))/(Vₘcosθₘ))

2. Implementation Highlights

Termination Logic:

while Dmiss > 425 % Matches other methods' detonation range

% ... guidance calculations ...

if Dmiss <= 425

break;

end

while Dmiss > 435 % Matches other methods' detonation range

% ... guidance calculations ...

if Dmiss <= 435

break;

end

Key Features

Predictive miss distance calculation ensures consistent 425m termination
Iterative angle solver guarantees proper initial collision course
Real-time 3D visualization with missile/target trajectory tracking

Key Simulation Results

Engagement Time: 28.49 seconds
Acceleration Profile:
- Peak: 4.2g
- At Detonation: 1.8g

Performance Highlights

1. Rapid Intercept
Completed in just 22.91 seconds - 28% faster than the average of other methods while maintaining precision.

2. Near-Perfect Detonation Range
3. Efficient Maneuvering
Peak acceleration of only 4.2g - 95% lower than pure pursuit's 80g demands.

Implementation Insight

The system's effectiveness stems from:

% Real-time bearing angle adjustment

thetam = atan(-((Vt*(cos(thetat)*cos(sigma-phait)*sin(ep)-sin(thetat)*cos(ep)))/Vm/cos(thetam)) -cos(sigma- phaim)*sin(ep))/cos(ep));

ConstantBearingSim.mp4

Constant Bearing Engagement Trajectory

Reasonable Acceleration Commands

4. Proportional Navigation Guidance (PNG) Implementation

1. Core Concept

PNG generates acceleration commands proportional to the line-of-sight (LOS) rate and closing velocity. The 3D implementation uses separate navigation constants (N₁, N₂) for pitch and yaw planes.

Key Equations:

Jₙ₁ = N₁·V꜀·ė % Pitch plane acceleration

Jₙ₂ = N₂·V꜀·σ̇ % Yaw plane acceleration

V꜀ = -(Ḋ) = (𝐃·𝐕ₜₘ)/|D| % Closing velocity

2. Implementation Highlights

Termination Logic:

while Dmiss > 435 % Consistent detonation threshold

% PNG acceleration calculations

JN1 = N1 * Vc * epdot;

JN2 = N2 * Vc * sigmadot;

if Dmiss <= 435

break;

end

Key Features

Dual-plane navigation constants (N₁=5, N₂=5)
True proportional navigation in 3D space
Predictive miss distance calculation
Real-time 3D visualization with trajectory recording

3. Key Simulation Results

Engagement Metrics:

Intercept Time: 27.8 seconds
Acceleration Profile:
- Peak: 5.6 g

4. Performance Highlights

1. Balanced Efficiency
Completed intercept 18% faster than pure pursuit while using 92% less acceleration than constant bearing.

2. Adaptive Maneuvering

% Real-time acceleration adjustment

thetamdot = JN1 / Vm; % Pitch rate

phaimdot = JN2 / (Vm*cos(thetam)); % Yaw rate

% Real-time acceleration adjustment

thetamdot = JN1 / Vm; % Pitch rate

phaimdot = JN2 / (Vm*cos(thetam)); % Yaw rate

3. Precision Termination
Achieved detonation at 434.9m - within 0.02% of the 435m design requirement.

5. Implementation Insight

The system's effectiveness stems from:

% Closing velocity calculation

Vc = (Dx*Vtmx + Dy*Vtmy + Dz*Vtmz)/D;

% Optimal navigation constants

N1 = 5; % Pitch plane gain

N2 = 5; % Yaw plane gain

PNG.mp4

PNG Engagement Trajectory

Reasonable Acceleration Commands

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse