Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Field-of-View and Input Constrained Impact Time Guidance Against Stationary Targets

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A nonlinear guidance law can force interception at a prescribed impact time while keeping the seeker's lead angle and the missile's acceleration within their limits.

desk verdict The paper is an incremental backstepping extension with strong simulation coverage, but its headline guarantee of exact impact time is not derived; the main proof only yields an exponential Lyapunov bound that does not imply rho(t_d)=0. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05893 v1 pith:DZUUNDWE submitted 2025-06-06 eess.SY cs.SY

Swati Singh , Shashi Ranjan Kumar , Dwaipayan Mukherjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93D3093C1093C95
keywords impacttimeguidancefield-of-viewconstraintinputsaturationbarrierLyapunovfunctionbacksteppingcontrolnonlineardeviatedpursuitlateralaccelerationlimit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a planar guidance law that makes an interceptor reach a stationary target at a preassigned impact time, even when the seeker has a limited field of view and the actuator has a finite acceleration limit. The central claim is that one backstepping command, built around a barrier Lyapunov function, drives the impact-time error to zero while keeping the lead angle inside $|\sigma| \leq \sigma_{\max}$ and the lateral acceleration strictly inside $|a_M| < a_{\max}$ throughout the engagement. The paper also adds a multi-stage deviated-pursuit mode so that impact times beyond the FOV-limited upper bound become reachable. The motivation is practical: salvo attacks need synchronized arrival, and ignoring seeker or actuator limits makes the command infeasible.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the pair formed by the input-saturation model $\dot{a}_M = (1 - (a_M/a_{\max})^n) a_M^c - \rho a_M$, which keeps the physical acceleration strictly inside $\pm a_{\max}$ as long as the command is bounded, and an asymmetric, time-varying barrier Lyapunov function $V_1$ built on the normalized time-to-go error, combined with a backstepping virtual control $\alpha_1$. The commanded acceleration in Eq. 11 is chosen so that the derivative of the full Lyapunov function $\bar{V} = V_1 + \tfrac{1}{2} \bar{z}_2^2$ is negative definite, which yields the time-to-go bounds and the boundedness of $\bar{z}_2$; a logarithmic inequality turns the algebraic decay into exponential decay. The deviated-pursuit extension adds a sliding surface $s = \sigma_e + \xi^{-1} \dot{\sigma}_e^{p_f/q_f}$ to regulate the lead angle to a desired constant before switching.

What would settle it

Simulate the same engagement with the actuator replaced by a hard saturation, $a_M = \operatorname{sign}(a_M^c) \min(|a_M^c|, a_{\max})$, keeping all gains and $t_d$ fixed, and check whether the actual lateral acceleration hits $\pm a_{\max}$ or the impact-time error fails to converge to zero at $t_d$. A cleaner check is to instrument the physical acceleration in the paper's Section 4.1 setup and test whether it crosses the $\pm 20g$ bound, since the paper's own figures show the commanded signal doing so.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the commanded lateral acceleration in Eq. 11 guarantees interception at the desired impact time for the nonlinear planar engagement, with the impact-time error confined between time-varying bounds that express the FOV constraint, and with the lateral acceleration bounded by the smooth input-saturation model in Eq. 7. The proof uses a convex combination of two asymmetric barrier Lyapunov functions and backstepping: one barrier handles the impact-time error against $\varrho_1$ and $\varrho_2$, the feasible time-to-go envelope, and the second quadratic step shapes the acceleration through the saturation model. A corollary states that the lead angle and lateral acceleration converge to zero near interception. The multi-stage extension uses a first-stage deviated pursuit with a sliding-mode command to build a larger heading error, then switches to the main law, which lets the interceptor intercept at impact times larger than the FOV-limited single-stage upper bound.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the smooth saturation model in Eq. 7, with the $-\rho a_M$ safety margin, correctly represents the actuator so that the physical lateral acceleration genuinely never reaches the hard limit $\pm a_{\max}$; if the real actuator saturates there, the boundedness theorem no longer applies and the impact-time guarantee is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An interceptor that obeys Eq. 7 can be commanded to arrive at a prespecified instant $t_d$ without an ad-hoc saturation block, provided $t_d$ lies in the FOV-compatible interval, and the proof gives explicit bounds on the impact-time error for all time.
  • Near interception the lead angle $\sigma$ and lateral acceleration $a_M$ both settle to zero, so the missile meets the target along the line of sight with negligible terminal acceleration demand.
  • The multi-stage strategy, deviated pursuit plus switching, extends achievable impact times beyond the single-stage FOV limit $r(0)/(V_M \cos \sigma_{\max})$, with the switching instant $t_1$ computed from the desired $t_d$.
  • The comparison simulations indicate the proposed law uses less total control effort, measured by $\int_0^{t_{\mathrm{imp}}} a_M^2 \, dt$, than the earlier FOV-and-input guidance laws in [24] and [26] for the tested cases.
  • Adding a second-order autopilot lag or measurement noise still yields interception at the desired impact time in the simulations, suggesting the design tolerates modest model mismatch.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: the guarantee is tied to Eq. 7; replacing it with a hard saturation block is the natural stress test, since the paper's own plots show the commanded acceleration exceeding the physical bound while the modeled $a_M$ stays inside it.
  • Extension: the same barrier-plus-saturation structure could be re-derived for maneuvering or slowly moving targets, where the line-of-sight dynamics gain a target-velocity term, though the time-to-go estimate would need revision.
  • Extension: the switching instant $t_1$ is computed from the desired impact time, but the control signal jumps at the switch; a smoothed handover law could reduce the transient acceleration spikes visible in the large-impact-time simulations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a planar nonlinear impact-time guidance law for interceptors attacking stationary targets, with simultaneous enforcement of a field-of-view constraint on the lead angle and a bound on lateral acceleration. The approach augments the engagement kinematics with a smooth input saturation model (Eq. 7), then uses a barrier-Lyapunov backstepping design to produce the commanded acceleration in Eq. (11), claiming exact interception at a prescribed finite time t_d. A multi-stage deviated-pursuit extension is proposed for larger impact times, and numerical simulations compare the method with [24] and [26] for several engagement geometries and acceleration bounds.

Significance. The problem is practically relevant: combining seeker field-of-view limits with actuator saturation in impact-time guidance is a genuine need, and the paper correctly identifies that many prior designs ignore input constraints. The comparison with [24] and [26] in Table 1 and the multi-stage idea for large impact times are useful contributions if the underlying guarantees hold. On the other hand, the central theoretical claim is not established by the proof as written: the Lyapunov analysis yields only an exponential decay bound, not the finite-time convergence needed for exact interception at t_d. The paper also does not provide reproducible code or machine-checked proofs, and several technical steps (boundedness of the command, switching of the barrier function, Theorem 3) are asserted rather than proved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Theorem 2 proof, Eq. (26a)] The proof's strongest quantitative result is an exponential bound, not finite-time convergence. From \bar\rho^{2p}(t) \le 1 - \exp(-2p\bar V(0)\exp(-2\kappa_p t)), for any finite t_d and \bar V(0)>0 the right-hand side is strictly less than 1, so the inequality does not imply \rho(t_d)=0. Since t_go^d(t_d)=0, a positive \rho(t_d) would imply t_go(t_d)>0 and hence r(t_d)>0, so the claimed interception at the desired finite impact time is not established. The concluding paragraph of the proof merely asserts that "the system is stable, target interception will be achieved at the desired impact time" without providing a finite-time convergence argument or comparison lemma.
  2. [Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, Theorems 1 and 2] Theorem 1 assumes the commanded input a_c^M is bounded for all t, but the paper never proves this for the command in Eq. (11). The command contains \dot\alpha_1 with a denominator proportional to r\sin 2\sigma, and \mu has denominators proportional to \varrho_1^{2p}-\varrho^{2p}; these quantities can vanish or become small, so no uniform bound on a_c^M is available. The simulation section itself notes in Section 4.1 and Fig. 5a that the commanded lateral acceleration exceeds the physical bound, so the hypothesis of Theorem 1 is not verified for the proposed command. Consequently, the conclusion |a_M|<a_{max} is not proven; it is only a property of the assumed saturation model (7).
  3. [Section 3.2.2, Theorem 3] The statement "since \dot{\bar V} \le 0 (from Eq. 25), it follows that \dot\varrho is negative and \varrho\to 0" is a non sequitur. A negative semi-definite Lyapunov derivative implies boundedness and, under additional conditions, convergence of the Lyapunov function, but it does not imply any particular sign of \dot\varrho. Deriving Eq. (27) by setting Eq. (5) to zero is circular because Eq. (5) equal to zero is exactly \dot\varrho=0, the property under proof. Thus Theorem 3 and Corollary 1 are unsupported.
  4. [Section 3.2.2, Eqs. (17)-(22)] The derivative of the switching function q(\varrho) is omitted when the barrier Lyapunov function (17)-(19) is differentiated. Since q jumps from 1 to 0 at \varrho=0, the calculation is valid only on intervals where q is constant, and the behavior at the switching instant requires a separate argument. Also, the text stating that V_1 is continuously differentiable "within the region |\varrho_1|\le 1" should instead refer to the open set |\varrho_b|<1. These gaps affect the claimed invariance of the time-to-go error bounds (14).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Figs. 3 and 5] The paper states that for the \gamma_M=75^\circ case the commanded lateral acceleration exceeds the physical actuator bounds while the actual acceleration does not. This should be reconciled with Problem 1, which phrases the constraint as "the lateral acceleration a_M must not exceed the maximum allowable bound"; the reader needs a precise statement of which signal is the constrained one.
  2. [Section 3.2.3, Theorem 4] In the sliding-mode proof, K(\dot\sigma_e) is positive only when \dot\sigma_e\neq 0; the case \dot\sigma_e=0 is not treated, so the finite-time reachability of s=0 needs a more careful argument.
  3. [General notation] The notation is inconsistent: \bar z_2 and z_2 are used interchangeably, and \varrho_a and \varrho_b are defined but not used consistently in the proof of Theorem 2.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Table 1] The phrase "the time-to-go error nullifies" is informal; use "converges to zero." In Table 1, units are missing and no quantitative miss distance or terminal time-to-go error is reported, which would help substantiate the claim of exact interception at t_d.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The lateral-acceleration bound is enforced by the input-saturation model's own structure rather than by the guidance law, while the exact finite-time impact-time claim is asserted without a finite-time proof; the backstepping derivation itself is non-circular.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.2.1, Eq. (7) and Theorem 1; invoked in Theorem 2 and Sec. 4.1]
    "To ensure the lateral acceleration remains within these bounds, we propose an input saturation model [32] given by (7): ᴏa_M = (1 - (a_M/a_{max})^n) a_M^c - ρ a_M ... Theorem 1. If the commanded input a_M^c remains bounded for all t≥0, then the lateral acceleration a_M will remain confined to the set S_{a_M} := {a_M : |a_M| < a_{max}} for all t≥0."

    The bound is built into the differential equation itself: at |a_M| = a_max the factor (1-(a_M/a_max)^n) vanishes and -ρ a_M points inward, so |a_M| < a_max holds by construction for any command. Theorem 1's 'guarantee' is therefore a restatement of the model definition, not a consequence of the guidance law (11). The paper then uses this model state as the 'actual lateral acceleration' and claims the physical limits are respected even when the commanded acceleration exceeds the bounds. The input-constraint part of the claimed result is thus self-definitional rather than derived.

full rationale

The central backstepping part of Theorem 2 is self-contained: the Lyapunov function (17)-(18), the stabilizing function α_1, and the command (11) are designed so that ᴍˉV becomes negative, yielding the quantitative bound (26a). That derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The time-to-go estimate (2) is taken from [31], which overlaps with the present authors, and it is load-bearing for all of the impact-time-error dynamics; however, it is a parameter-free analytical formula with stated assumptions, so under the review rules it counts as independent evidence rather than circularity. The genuine circularity is narrower but real: the lateral-acceleration constraint is not predicted by the guidance law but is put into the plant model via the smooth saturation ODE (7), and Theorem 1 plus the simulation claims then present that model property as a design guarantee. Separately, the proof does not actually establish the finite-time statement ρ(t_d)=0: inequality (26a) gives only exponential decay of the barrier bound, with a strictly positive right-hand side at any finite t_d, so the 'interception at the desired impact time' conclusion is an unsupported assertion rather than a derived result. Because one of the three central claims reduces by construction while the impact-time core does not, a partial-circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central design rests on a kinematic model, an approximate time-to-go expression from the authors' own earlier work, and an ad hoc input saturation model. The saturation model is where constraint satisfaction is put in by construction rather than derived from physics, and the time-to-go estimate is cited rather than reproven.

free parameters (5)
  • Saturation damping rho = 0.1
    Hand-chosen in Eq 7; sets the safety margin between actual acceleration and the bound through delta_M.
  • Saturation exponent n = even integer >= 2, exact value not stated
    Shape of the soft saturation in Eq 7; the proof needs n even so that 1 - (aM/amax)^n is nonnegative.
  • Lyapunov gains kappa1, kappa3, beta = set to 1 in Section 4
    Positive gains in Eq 11 and Eq 16; only positivity is needed for the Lyapunov argument, but values control convergence and are chosen by hand.
  • Multi-stage switching parameters Lambda, epsilon, sigma_d = Lambda undefined, epsilon small, sigma_d = 65 deg in Sec 4.5
    Needed to compute switch time t1 and the detour trajectory; no selection rule is provided.
  • Sliding-mode gains c, pf, qf, xi = c=1000, pf=11, qf=9 in Sec 4; xi positive but unspecified
    Parameters for the finite-time lead-angle tracking in Theorem 4; hand-tuned.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kinematics Eq 1: constant-speed point-mass interceptor, planar relative motion, stationary target
    Used throughout and restricts the result to planar constant-speed engagements against stationary targets.
  • domain assumption Time-to-go estimate Eq 2: tgo = (r/VM)(1 + sin^2 sigma / kappa), kappa = 2(2N-1), from [31]
    Core model for the impact-time error; cited from previous work by the same group and not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Input saturation model Eq 7: (1 - (aM/amax)^n) ac_M - rho aM is a valid actuator representation
    The boundedness of aM is obtained by construction of this ODE; no physical actuator validation is given.
  • domain assumption FOV constraint is equivalent to |sigma| <= sigma_max < pi/2
    Used to define the time-to-go bounds and the barrier function domain.
  • standard math Barrier Lyapunov lemmas: Lemma 1 from [29] and Lemma 2 from [30]
    Used to conclude constraint preservation and to bound the logarithmic inequality.
invented entities (1)
  • Input saturation model (Eq 7)
    purpose: To ensure |aM| < amax by definition and to create a second-order augmented system for backstepping.
    It is a postulated smooth saturation ODE, not a measured actuator; the bound follows from the model's structure, so independent physical evidence is absent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Field-of-View and Input Constrained Impact Time Guidance Against Stationary Targets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZUUNDWE

@misc{pith2026250605893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Field-of-View and Input Constrained Impact Time Guidance Against Stationary Targets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZUUNDWE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05893}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes a guidance strategy to achieve time-constrained interception of stationary targets, taking into account both the bounded field-of-view (FOV) of seeker-equipped interceptors and the actuator's physical constraints. Actuator saturation presents a significant challenge in real-world systems, often resulting in degraded performance. However, since these limitations are typically known in advance, incorporating them into the guidance design can enhance overall performance. To address the FOV constraint, a time-to-go error-based approach is adopted. Furthermore, to incorporate the lateral acceleration constraints, the engagement kinematics are augmented with an input saturation model. Subsequently, the guidance strategy that constrains the lateral acceleration and the time-to-go values within their respective bounds is derived using Lyapunov stability concepts and the backstepping technique. Furthermore, a multi-stage approach is suggested to expand the achievable range of impact time. Numerical simulations are performed to validate the efficacy of the proposed scheme for different initial engagement geometries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A typical interceptor-target engagement for the planar case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of FOV and input constrained impact time guidance strategy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Target interception for td = 42s with different σ. We first evaluate the performance with two different initial heading angles. The initial heading angles are set to γM = 20◦ and γM = 75◦ , respectively, while the maximum allow￾able field-of-view (FOV) bound is taken as σmax = 80◦ . The maximum lateral acceleration of the interceptor is constrained to amax. The simulation is performed for a desired impact time of td… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Target interception for σ = 60◦ with different td. Next, we validate the efficacy of the proposed guidance strategy by testing it under differ￾ent impact time scenarios. The initial heading angle is set to γM = 60◦ , with the maximum allowable field-of-view (FOV) bound…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Commanded lateral acceleration. longer trajectory to intercept the target at td = 43 s compared to td = 42 s, which reflects the additional time available for interception. The time-to-go error is nullified well before the actual interception in both cases, as shown in…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Target interception for different amax. observed that the time-to-go error converges more slowly for smaller values of amax, as de￾picted in Fig. 6c. This behavior is expected since lower lateral acceleration bounds constrain the interceptor’s maneuvering capability, l…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relative performance with existing guidance strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Target interception for larger impact times. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System in the presence of Autopilot truncated to two first-order ones via some balanced realization. Hence, it is pragmatic to capture the higher-order dynamical phenomenon using a lower-order approximation, result￾ing in the traceability of physical realization, while…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Target interception for different impact times. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Target interception under noisy measurements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Actual, noisy, and filtered measurements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    S. R. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, Three-dimensional nonsingular impact time guidance with limited field-of-view, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 30 (4) (2021) 1448–1459.doi:10.1109/TCST.2021.3116800

    arXiv 2021

  2. [26]

    Singh, S

    S. Singh, S. R. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, Time-constrained interception with bounded field of view and input using barrier lyapunov approach, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 47 (2) (2024) 384–393.doi:10.2514/1.G007770

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g007770 2024

  3. [3]

    N. Cho, Y. Kim, Modified pure proportional navigation guidance law for impact time control, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 39 (4) (2016) 852–872.doi: 10.2514/1.G001618

    doi:10.2514/1.g001618 2016

  4. [4]

    Jeon, J.-I

    I.-S. Jeon, J.-I. Lee, M.-J. Tahk, Impact-time-control guidance law for anti-ship missiles, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 14 (2) (2006) 260–266.doi:10. 1109/TCST.2005.863655. 28

    work page arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Jeon, J.-I

    I.-S. Jeon, J.-I. Lee, M.-J. Tahk, Impact-time-control guidance with generalized propor- tional navigation based on nonlinear formulation, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 39 (8) (2016) 1887–1892.doi:10.2514/1.G001681

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g001681 2016

  6. [6]

    D. Cho, H. J. Kim, M.-J. Tahk, Nonsingular sliding mode guidance for impact time control, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 39 (1) (2015) 61–68.doi:10. 2514/1.G001167

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Cheng, B

    Z. Cheng, B. Wang, L. Liu, Y. Wang, A composite impact-time-control guidance law and simultaneous arrival, Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 403–412.doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2018.05.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2018.05.009 2018

  8. [10]

    Tekin, K

    R. Tekin, K. S. Erer, F. Holzapfel, Control of impact time with increased robustness via feedback linearization, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 39 (7) (2016) 1682–1689.doi:10.2514/1.G001719

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g001719 2016

Show all 30 references
  1. [11]

    N. Harl, S. N. Balakrishnan, Impact time and angle guidance with sliding mode control, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 20 (6) (2012) 1436–1449.doi: 10.1109/TCST.2011.2169795

    2012

  2. [12]

    J. Zhu, D. Su, Y. Xie, H. Sun, Impact time and angle control guidance independent of time-to-go prediction, Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 818–825.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.01.047

    2019 doi

  3. [13]

    J. Guo, Y. Xiong, J. Zhou, A new sliding mode control design for integrated missile guidance and control system, Aerospace Science and Technology 78 (2018) 54–61.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.03.042. 29

    2018 doi

  4. [14]

    C. Ming, X. Wang, R. Sun, A novel non-singular terminal sliding mode control-based integrated missile guidance and control with impact angle constraint, Aerospace Sci- ence and Technology 94 (2019) 105368.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019. 105368

    2019 doi

  5. [15]

    Sinha, S

    A. Sinha, S. R. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, Nonsingular impact time guidance and control using deviated pursuit, Aerospace Science and Technology 115 (2021) 106776.doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2021.106776

    2021

  6. [16]

    Sinha, S

    A. Sinha, S. R. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, Impact time constrained integrated guidance and control design, Aerospace Science and Technology 115 (2021) 106824.doi:10.1016/j. ast.2021.106824

    2021

  7. [17]

    J. Xie, K. Ma, Suboptimal guidance law against maneuvering target with time and angle constraints, Aerospace Science and Technology 148 (2024) 109111.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2024.109111

    2024

  8. [18]

    Zhang, W

    W. Zhang, W. Chen, J. Li, W. Yu, Guidance algorithm for impact time, angle, and acceleration control under varying velocity condition, Aerospace Science and Technology 123 (2022) 107462.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2022.107462

    2022

  9. [19]

    Zhang, X

    Y. Zhang, X. Wang, H. Wu, Impact time control guidance law with field of view con- straint, Aerospace Science and Technology 39 (2014) 361–369.doi:10.1016/j.ast. 2014.10.002

    2014 doi

  10. [20]

    H.-G. Kim, H. J. Kim, Backstepping-based impact time control guidance law for mis- siles with reduced seeker field-of-view, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 55 (1) (2019) 82–94.doi:10.1109/TAES.2018.2848319

    2019

  11. [21]

    Jeon, J.-I

    I.-S. Jeon, J.-I. Lee, Impact-time-control guidance law with constraints on seeker look angle, IEEETransactionsonAerospaceandElectronicSystems53(5)(2017)2621–2627. doi:10.1109/TAES.2017.2698837

    2017

  12. [22]

    Kim, J.-Y

    H.-G. Kim, J.-Y. Lee, H. J. Kim, H.-H. Kwon, J.-S. Park, Look-angle-shaping guidance law for impact angle and time control with field-of-view constraint, IEEE Transactions 30 on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 56 (2) (2020) 1602–1612.doi:10.1109/TAES. 2019.2924175

    2020

  13. [23]

    X. Chen, J. Wang, Nonsingular sliding-mode control for field-of-view constrained impact time guidance, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 41 (5) (2018) 1214–1222. doi:10.2514/1.G003146

    2018 doi

  14. [25]

    X. Li, W. Chen, Z. Chen, H. Shi, Generalized circular impact time guidance, Aerospace Science and Technology 155 (2024) 109543.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast. 2024.109543

    2024

  15. [27]

    Zarchan, Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2012, pp.21-433.doi:10.2514/4.868948

    P. Zarchan, Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2012, pp.21-433.doi:10.2514/4.868948

    2012 doi

  16. [28]

    R. Rout, R. Cui, Z. Han, Modified line-of-sight guidance law with adaptive neural network control of underactuated marine vehicles with state and input constraints, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 28 (5) (2020) 1902–1914.doi: 10.1109/TCST.2020.2998798

    2020

  17. [29]

    K. P. Tee, S. S. Ge, E. H. Tay, Barrier lyapunov functions for the control of output- constrained nonlinear systems, Automatica 45 (4) (2009) 918–927.doi:10.1016/j. automatica.2008.11.017

    2009 doi

  18. [30]

    B. Ren, S. S. Ge, K. P. Tee, T. H. Lee, Adaptive neural control for output feedback nonlinear systems using a barrier lyapunov function, IEEE Transactions on Neural Net- works 21 (8) (2010) 1339–1345.doi:10.1109/TNN.2010.2047115. 31

    2010

  19. [31]

    Sinha, S

    A. Sinha, S. R. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, Three-dimensional guidance with terminal time constraints for wide launch envelops, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 44 (2) (2021) 343–359.doi:10.2514/1.G005180

    2021 doi

  20. [32]

    A.-M. Zou, K. D. Kumar, Finite-time attitude control for rigid spacecraft subject to actuator saturation, Nonlinear Dynamics 96 (2019) 1017–1035.doi:10.1007/ s11071-019-04836-7

    2019

  21. [33]

    K. P. Tee, B. Ren, S. S. Ge, Control of nonlinear systems with time-varying output constraints, Automatica 47 (11) (2011) 2511–2516.doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2011. 08.044

    2011 doi

  22. [34]

    Gutman, Can lead-lag guidance compensator guarantee zero-miss-distance?, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 31 (3) (2008) 779–782.doi:10.2514/1.34042

    S. Gutman, Can lead-lag guidance compensator guarantee zero-miss-distance?, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 31 (3) (2008) 779–782.doi:10.2514/1.34042. 32

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.