Design of distributed guidance laws for multi-UAV cooperative attacking a moving target based on reducing surrounding area

Jianying Yang; Xiangru Fan; Xiaoqian Wei

arxiv: 1906.10790 · v1 · pith:UXHZ4HGWnew · submitted 2019-06-26 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Design of distributed guidance laws for multi-UAV cooperative attacking a moving target based on reducing surrounding area

Xiaoqian Wei , Jianying Yang , Xiangru Fan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 16:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords multi-UAV cooperative guidancesimultaneous attackdistributed guidance lawsmoving targetarea reductionspanning tree network

0 comments

The pith

Distributed guidance laws let multiple UAVs attack a moving target simultaneously by shrinking their surrounding area at equal rates.

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

This paper presents two cooperative guidance laws for groups of UAVs to encircle or strike a moving target together. The laws function with known or unknown target acceleration and require only that the communication network includes a directed spanning tree with at least one UAV observing the target. Components along the line of sight reduce the relative distance to the target at the same rate for all attackers, enabling simultaneous attack without calculating time-to-go. Perpendicular components eliminate normal overload in relative motion to keep trajectories undistorted and prevent collisions among the attackers.

Core claim

The guidance laws decompose commands into line-of-sight and perpendicular parts; the line-of-sight parts equalize the rate of closure to the target so the surrounding area shrinks uniformly, while perpendicular parts null normal relative acceleration, achieving cooperative simultaneous attack under minimal network connectivity.

What carries the argument

Area-reduction guidance commands that equalize line-of-sight closure rates across a directed spanning tree network while setting perpendicular relative acceleration to zero.

If this is right

The method achieves simultaneous attack without explicit remaining-time computation.
Only a spanning tree communication structure and partial target observability are required.
Trajectories avoid distortion and internal collisions through zero normal overload.
The laws apply to both known and unknown target acceleration cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach could be tested in scenarios with communication delays or packet loss.
Similar area-reduction ideas might apply to multi-agent encirclement tasks in robotics.
Extensions to 3D space would require redefining the surrounding area metric.

Load-bearing premise

The attackers' communication network forms a directed spanning tree and at least one attacker observes the target.

What would settle it

A case where the communication graph lacks a directed spanning tree, resulting in non-simultaneous arrival times.

read the original abstract

In this paper, two cooperative guidance laws based on the area around the target of multiattackers are designed to deal with the problem of cooperative encirclement or simultaneous attack in the case of known target acceleration and unknown target acceleration. Multi-attacker communication network only needs to contain a directed spanning tree, and does not require all attackers to observe the target information, where at least one can observe the target. The components along the attacker-target line of sight in the novel guidance laws can reduce the relative remaining distance between the attacker and the target at the same speed, thus completing simultaneous attack and avoiding the calculation of the remaining time. The components of the guidance laws perpendicular to the attacker-target line of sight can make the normal overload of relative motion zero, so that the trajectory will not be distorted and the collision problem within the attacker group can be avoided. The simulation results verify the practicability of the novel guidance laws.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper's core claim that equal LOS range rates produce simultaneous arrival is kinematically false when initial distances differ, which undercuts the main result.

read the letter

The one thing to flag is that the simultaneous-attack claim does not follow from the stated mechanism. The abstract says the LOS components reduce remaining distance at the same speed for all attackers, thereby completing simultaneous attack without needing time-to-go. If that means a common numerical value for range rate across attackers, arrival times are simply initial range divided by that rate. Different starting distances produce different arrival times. The perpendicular component keeps trajectories radial and avoids collisions inside the group, but it does not fix the timing mismatch. The directed-spanning-tree condition lets information propagate but cannot change the underlying kinematics. The stress-test note lands on the abstract as written.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper designs two distributed cooperative guidance laws for multi-UAV simultaneous attack on a moving target, based on reducing the surrounding area. The laws apply to both known and unknown target acceleration. The multi-attacker network requires only a directed spanning tree with at least one attacker observing the target. LOS components are claimed to reduce relative distances at identical speeds (enabling simultaneous attack without time-to-go computation), while perpendicular components enforce zero normal overload to avoid trajectory distortion and intra-group collisions. Claims are supported by simulations.

Significance. If the central kinematic claim held, the work would offer a distributed guidance method with minimal connectivity and no explicit time-to-go, potentially useful for cooperative UAV operations. However, the approach as described rests on a flawed assumption that identical range-rate reduction yields simultaneous arrival; this undermines the primary contribution. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations are indicated.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract (and central claim): The statement that LOS components 'reduce the relative remaining distance between the attacker and the target at the same speed, thus completing simultaneous attack' is kinematically incorrect. Enforcing ḣ_i(t) = c(t) (common value) yields arrival times t_i = r_i(0)/|c| that differ whenever initial ranges r_i(0) differ. The perpendicular-component claim (zero normal overload) ensures radial paths but does not resolve the timing mismatch. The directed-spanning-tree condition propagates information but cannot alter this requirement. No indication is given that the law instead uses a common decay ratio such as ḣ_i = −k r_i.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract asserts 'simulation verification' for both known and unknown acceleration cases but provides no equations, stability analysis, or quantitative results; this makes independent assessment of the claims impossible from the provided text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and detailed review of our manuscript. The central concern regarding the kinematic validity of the simultaneous-attack claim is addressed point-by-point below. We agree that the current wording requires correction.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and central claim): The statement that LOS components 'reduce the relative remaining distance between the attacker and the target at the same speed, thus completing simultaneous attack' is kinematically incorrect. Enforcing ḣ_i(t) = c(t) (common value) yields arrival times t_i = r_i(0)/|c| that differ whenever initial ranges r_i(0) differ. The perpendicular-component claim (zero normal overload) ensures radial paths but does not resolve the timing mismatch. The directed-spanning-tree condition propagates information but cannot alter this requirement. No indication is given that the law instead uses a common decay ratio such as ḣ_i = −k r_i.

Authors: We agree that the referee's kinematic analysis is correct: a common range-rate ḣ_i(t) = c(t) produces arrival times proportional to the initial ranges and therefore cannot guarantee simultaneity when the r_i(0) differ. The abstract and the corresponding passages in Sections III and IV use imprecise language that suggests a constant common speed reduction. We will revise the abstract, the problem formulation, and the guidance-law derivations to remove this claim. The revised manuscript will either (a) replace the LOS component with a range-proportional term that yields a common time constant or (b) explicitly state the conditions under which the present law achieves simultaneity (e.g., identical initial ranges). A corrected kinematic proof and updated simulation results consistent with the revised theory will be added. The spanning-tree connectivity and perpendicular-component arguments remain valid and will be retained. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation uses standard LOS kinematics and graph connectivity without self-referential fitting or load-bearing self-citations

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on designing guidance laws whose LOS components enforce identical range-rate reduction across attackers (via directed spanning tree consensus) and perpendicular components null normal overload. No equations or sections reduce a 'prediction' to a fitted input by construction, nor does any uniqueness theorem or ansatz trace to self-citation chains. The abstract and described structure invoke only external graph theory and relative-motion kinematics; the simultaneous-attack assertion follows directly from the stated law rather than redefining its own inputs. This is the common case of a self-contained derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; ledger populated from stated assumptions on network topology and observation. No free parameters or invented entities are explicitly named.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Multi-attacker communication network contains a directed spanning tree with at least one attacker observing the target.
Stated directly in abstract as requirement for the distributed laws.
domain assumption UAV kinematics allow decomposition into line-of-sight and perpendicular components that independently control range closure and normal overload.
Implicit in the description of the two guidance components.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5693 in / 1212 out tokens · 32345 ms · 2026-05-25T16:12:51.529964+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

A connection between dynamic regi on-following formation control and dis- tributed average tracking,

Chen, F., and Ren, W., “A connection between dynamic regi on-following formation control and dis- tributed average tracking,” IEEE Trans. on Cybernetics , Vol.48, No.6, 2018, pp. 1760–1772. DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2017.2714688

work page doi:10.1109/tcyb.2017.2714688 2018
[2]

Time-varying formation control fo r general linear multi-agent sys- tems with switching directed topologies,

Dong, X., and Hu, G., “Time-varying formation control fo r general linear multi-agent sys- tems with switching directed topologies,” Automatica, Vol.73, No.C, 2016, pp. 7–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.automatica.2016.06.024

work page doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2016.06.024 2016
[3]

Global coopera tive control framework for multiagent systems subject to actuator saturation with industrial app lications,

Wang, B., Wang, J., Zhang, B., and Li, X., “Global coopera tive control framework for multiagent systems subject to actuator saturation with industrial app lications,” IEEE Trans. on Systems Man and Cybernetics, Systems , Vol.47, No.7, 2017, pp. 1270–1283. DOI: 10.1109/tsmc.201 6.2573584

work page doi:10.1109/tsmc.201 2017
[4]

Distributed guidance law design for cooperative simultaneous attacks with multiple missiles,

Zhou, J., and Yang, J., “Distributed guidance law design for cooperative simultaneous attacks with multiple missiles,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol.39, No.10, 2016, pp. 1–9. DOI: 10.2514/1.g001609

work page doi:10.2514/1.g001609 2016
[5]

Finite-time coo perative guidance laws for multiple missiles with acceleration saturation constraints,

Hou, D., Wang, Q., Sun, X., and Dong, C., “Finite-time coo perative guidance laws for multiple missiles with acceleration saturation constraints,” Control Theory and Applications Iet , Vol.9, No.10, 2015, pp. 1525–1535. DOI: 10.1049/iet-cta.2014.0443 22

work page doi:10.1049/iet-cta.2014.0443 2015
[6]

Distributed cooperativ e guidance of multiple anti-ship missiles with arbitrary impact angle constraint,

Wang, X., Zhang, Y., and Wu, H., “Distributed cooperativ e guidance of multiple anti-ship missiles with arbitrary impact angle constraint,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol.46, 2015, pp. 299–311. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2015.08.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2015.08.002 2015
[7]

Distributed guida nce for interception by using multiple rotary- wing unmanned aerial vehicles,

Bing, Z., Zaini, A. H. B., and Xie, L., “Distributed guida nce for interception by using multiple rotary- wing unmanned aerial vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , Vol.64, No.7, 2017, pp. 5648–5656. DOI: 10.1109/AIM.2016.7576906

work page doi:10.1109/aim.2016.7576906 2017
[8]

Simultaneous attack of a s tationary target using multiple missiles, a consensus-based approach,

Zhou, J., Yang, J., and Li, Z., “Simultaneous attack of a s tationary target using multiple missiles, a consensus-based approach,” Science China Information Sciences , Vol.60, No.7, 2017, pp. 67–80. DOI: 10.1007/s11432-016-9089-7

work page doi:10.1007/s11432-016-9089-7 2017
[9]

Homing Guidance L aw for Cooperative Attack of Multi- ple Missiles,

Jeon, I. S., Lee, J. I., and Tahk, M. J., “Homing Guidance L aw for Cooperative Attack of Multi- ple Missiles,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol.33, No.1, 2010, pp. 275–280. DOI: 10.2514/1.40136

work page doi:10.2514/1.40136 2010
[10]

Integrated guidance a nd control law for cooperative attack of multi- ple missiles,

Wang, X., Zheng, Y., and Lin, H., “Integrated guidance a nd control law for cooperative attack of multi- ple missiles,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol.42, 2015, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2014.11.018

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2014.11.018 2015
[11]

Optimal guidance law for cooperat ive attack of multiple missiles based on optimal control theory,

Sun, X., and Xia, Y., “Optimal guidance law for cooperat ive attack of multiple missiles based on optimal control theory,” International Journal of Control , Vol.85, No.8, 2012, pp. 1063–1070. DOI: 10.1080/00207179.2012.675519

work page doi:10.1080/00207179.2012.675519 2012
[12]

Optimal cooperative guidance law for salvo at- tack: an MPC-based consensus perspective,

Kang, S., Wang, J., Li, G., Shan, J., and Petersen, I.R., “Optimal cooperative guidance law for salvo at- tack: an MPC-based consensus perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , Vol.54, No.5, 2018, pp. 2397–2410. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2018 .2816880

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2018 2018
[13]

Sliding mode guidanc e law for impact time control without explicit time-to-go estimation,

Kim, H. G., Cho, D., and Kim, H. J., “Sliding mode guidanc e law for impact time control without explicit time-to-go estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , Vol.55, No.1, 2019, pp. 236–250. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2018.2850208

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2018.2850208 2019
[14]

Cooperative guid ance law design for simultaneous attack with multiple missiles against a maneuvering target,

Zhou, J., Lv, Y., Li, Z., and Yang, J., “Cooperative guid ance law design for simultaneous attack with multiple missiles against a maneuvering target,” Journal of Systems Science and Complexity , Vol. 31, No. 1, 2018, pp. 287–301.DOI: 10.1007/s11424-018-6317-7

work page doi:10.1007/s11424-018-6317-7 2018
[15]

Time-to-go pr ediction for homing missiles based on minimum-time intercepts,

Hull, D. G., Radke, J. J., and Mack, R. E., “Time-to-go pr ediction for homing missiles based on minimum-time intercepts,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol.14, No.5, 2012, pp. 865–

work page 2012
[16]

DOI: 10.2514/3.20725

work page doi:10.2514/3.20725
[17]

Nonsingular terminal sliding mode control of nonlinear second-order systems with input saturation,

Ding, S., and Zheng, W., “Nonsingular terminal sliding mode control of nonlinear second-order systems with input saturation,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control , Vol. 26, 2016, pp. 1857–1872. DOI: 10.1002/rnc.3381 23

work page doi:10.1002/rnc.3381 2016
[18]

Interception ang le control guidance using proportional navigation with error feedback,

Lee, C. H., Kim, T. H., and Tahk, M. J., “Interception ang le control guidance using proportional navigation with error feedback,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol. 36, No. 5, 2013, pp. 1556–1561.DOI: 10.2514/1.58454

work page doi:10.2514/1.58454 2013
[19]

Optimality of lin ear time-varying guidance for impact angle control,

Lee, Y. I., Kim, S. H., and Tahk, M. J., “Optimality of lin ear time-varying guidance for impact angle control,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , Vol. 48, No. 4, 2012, pp. 2802–2817. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2012.6324662

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2012.6324662 2012
[20]

Modiﬁed pure proportional naviga tion guidance law for impact time control,

Cho, N., and Kim, Y., “Modiﬁed pure proportional naviga tion guidance law for impact time control,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol. 39, No. 4, 2016, pp. 1–21. DOI: 10.2514/1.G001618

work page doi:10.2514/1.g001618 2016
[21]

Guidance laws ba sed on optimal feedback linearization pseudo- control with time-to-go estimation,

Alkaher, D., Moshaiov, A., and Or,Y., “Guidance laws ba sed on optimal feedback linearization pseudo- control with time-to-go estimation,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol.37, No.4, 2014, pp. 1298–1305. DOI: 10.2514/1.g000205

work page doi:10.2514/1.g000205 2014
[22]

Eﬀects of time-to -go errors on performance of optimal guidance laws,

Lee, C. H., Kim, T. H., and Tahk, M. J., “Eﬀects of time-to -go errors on performance of optimal guidance laws,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , Vol.51, No.4, 2015, pp. 3270–

work page 2015
[23]

DOI: 10.1109/taes.2015.150163 24

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2015.150163 2015

[1] [1]

A connection between dynamic regi on-following formation control and dis- tributed average tracking,

Chen, F., and Ren, W., “A connection between dynamic regi on-following formation control and dis- tributed average tracking,” IEEE Trans. on Cybernetics , Vol.48, No.6, 2018, pp. 1760–1772. DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2017.2714688

work page doi:10.1109/tcyb.2017.2714688 2018

[2] [2]

Time-varying formation control fo r general linear multi-agent sys- tems with switching directed topologies,

Dong, X., and Hu, G., “Time-varying formation control fo r general linear multi-agent sys- tems with switching directed topologies,” Automatica, Vol.73, No.C, 2016, pp. 7–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.automatica.2016.06.024

work page doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2016.06.024 2016

[3] [3]

Global coopera tive control framework for multiagent systems subject to actuator saturation with industrial app lications,

Wang, B., Wang, J., Zhang, B., and Li, X., “Global coopera tive control framework for multiagent systems subject to actuator saturation with industrial app lications,” IEEE Trans. on Systems Man and Cybernetics, Systems , Vol.47, No.7, 2017, pp. 1270–1283. DOI: 10.1109/tsmc.201 6.2573584

work page doi:10.1109/tsmc.201 2017

[4] [4]

Distributed guidance law design for cooperative simultaneous attacks with multiple missiles,

Zhou, J., and Yang, J., “Distributed guidance law design for cooperative simultaneous attacks with multiple missiles,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol.39, No.10, 2016, pp. 1–9. DOI: 10.2514/1.g001609

work page doi:10.2514/1.g001609 2016

[5] [5]

Finite-time coo perative guidance laws for multiple missiles with acceleration saturation constraints,

Hou, D., Wang, Q., Sun, X., and Dong, C., “Finite-time coo perative guidance laws for multiple missiles with acceleration saturation constraints,” Control Theory and Applications Iet , Vol.9, No.10, 2015, pp. 1525–1535. DOI: 10.1049/iet-cta.2014.0443 22

work page doi:10.1049/iet-cta.2014.0443 2015

[6] [6]

Distributed cooperativ e guidance of multiple anti-ship missiles with arbitrary impact angle constraint,

Wang, X., Zhang, Y., and Wu, H., “Distributed cooperativ e guidance of multiple anti-ship missiles with arbitrary impact angle constraint,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol.46, 2015, pp. 299–311. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2015.08.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2015.08.002 2015

[7] [7]

Distributed guida nce for interception by using multiple rotary- wing unmanned aerial vehicles,

Bing, Z., Zaini, A. H. B., and Xie, L., “Distributed guida nce for interception by using multiple rotary- wing unmanned aerial vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , Vol.64, No.7, 2017, pp. 5648–5656. DOI: 10.1109/AIM.2016.7576906

work page doi:10.1109/aim.2016.7576906 2017

[8] [8]

Simultaneous attack of a s tationary target using multiple missiles, a consensus-based approach,

Zhou, J., Yang, J., and Li, Z., “Simultaneous attack of a s tationary target using multiple missiles, a consensus-based approach,” Science China Information Sciences , Vol.60, No.7, 2017, pp. 67–80. DOI: 10.1007/s11432-016-9089-7

work page doi:10.1007/s11432-016-9089-7 2017

[9] [9]

Homing Guidance L aw for Cooperative Attack of Multi- ple Missiles,

Jeon, I. S., Lee, J. I., and Tahk, M. J., “Homing Guidance L aw for Cooperative Attack of Multi- ple Missiles,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol.33, No.1, 2010, pp. 275–280. DOI: 10.2514/1.40136

work page doi:10.2514/1.40136 2010

[10] [10]

Integrated guidance a nd control law for cooperative attack of multi- ple missiles,

Wang, X., Zheng, Y., and Lin, H., “Integrated guidance a nd control law for cooperative attack of multi- ple missiles,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol.42, 2015, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2014.11.018

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2014.11.018 2015

[11] [11]

Optimal guidance law for cooperat ive attack of multiple missiles based on optimal control theory,

Sun, X., and Xia, Y., “Optimal guidance law for cooperat ive attack of multiple missiles based on optimal control theory,” International Journal of Control , Vol.85, No.8, 2012, pp. 1063–1070. DOI: 10.1080/00207179.2012.675519

work page doi:10.1080/00207179.2012.675519 2012

[12] [12]

Optimal cooperative guidance law for salvo at- tack: an MPC-based consensus perspective,

Kang, S., Wang, J., Li, G., Shan, J., and Petersen, I.R., “Optimal cooperative guidance law for salvo at- tack: an MPC-based consensus perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , Vol.54, No.5, 2018, pp. 2397–2410. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2018 .2816880

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2018 2018

[13] [13]

Sliding mode guidanc e law for impact time control without explicit time-to-go estimation,

Kim, H. G., Cho, D., and Kim, H. J., “Sliding mode guidanc e law for impact time control without explicit time-to-go estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , Vol.55, No.1, 2019, pp. 236–250. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2018.2850208

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2018.2850208 2019

[14] [14]

Cooperative guid ance law design for simultaneous attack with multiple missiles against a maneuvering target,

Zhou, J., Lv, Y., Li, Z., and Yang, J., “Cooperative guid ance law design for simultaneous attack with multiple missiles against a maneuvering target,” Journal of Systems Science and Complexity , Vol. 31, No. 1, 2018, pp. 287–301.DOI: 10.1007/s11424-018-6317-7

work page doi:10.1007/s11424-018-6317-7 2018

[15] [15]

Time-to-go pr ediction for homing missiles based on minimum-time intercepts,

Hull, D. G., Radke, J. J., and Mack, R. E., “Time-to-go pr ediction for homing missiles based on minimum-time intercepts,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol.14, No.5, 2012, pp. 865–

work page 2012

[16] [16]

DOI: 10.2514/3.20725

work page doi:10.2514/3.20725

[17] [17]

Nonsingular terminal sliding mode control of nonlinear second-order systems with input saturation,

Ding, S., and Zheng, W., “Nonsingular terminal sliding mode control of nonlinear second-order systems with input saturation,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control , Vol. 26, 2016, pp. 1857–1872. DOI: 10.1002/rnc.3381 23

work page doi:10.1002/rnc.3381 2016

[18] [18]

Interception ang le control guidance using proportional navigation with error feedback,

Lee, C. H., Kim, T. H., and Tahk, M. J., “Interception ang le control guidance using proportional navigation with error feedback,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol. 36, No. 5, 2013, pp. 1556–1561.DOI: 10.2514/1.58454

work page doi:10.2514/1.58454 2013

[19] [19]

Optimality of lin ear time-varying guidance for impact angle control,

Lee, Y. I., Kim, S. H., and Tahk, M. J., “Optimality of lin ear time-varying guidance for impact angle control,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , Vol. 48, No. 4, 2012, pp. 2802–2817. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2012.6324662

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2012.6324662 2012

[20] [20]

Modiﬁed pure proportional naviga tion guidance law for impact time control,

Cho, N., and Kim, Y., “Modiﬁed pure proportional naviga tion guidance law for impact time control,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol. 39, No. 4, 2016, pp. 1–21. DOI: 10.2514/1.G001618

work page doi:10.2514/1.g001618 2016

[21] [21]

Guidance laws ba sed on optimal feedback linearization pseudo- control with time-to-go estimation,

Alkaher, D., Moshaiov, A., and Or,Y., “Guidance laws ba sed on optimal feedback linearization pseudo- control with time-to-go estimation,” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics , Vol.37, No.4, 2014, pp. 1298–1305. DOI: 10.2514/1.g000205

work page doi:10.2514/1.g000205 2014

[22] [22]

Eﬀects of time-to -go errors on performance of optimal guidance laws,

Lee, C. H., Kim, T. H., and Tahk, M. J., “Eﬀects of time-to -go errors on performance of optimal guidance laws,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , Vol.51, No.4, 2015, pp. 3270–

work page 2015

[23] [23]

DOI: 10.1109/taes.2015.150163 24

work page doi:10.1109/taes.2015.150163 2015