Evasive Guidance Law Against Proportional Navigation Considering Dynamic Lag

Mengke Zhao; Libing Hou; Heng Shi; Luhua Yang; Minchi Kuang; Jihong Zhu

doi:10.1016/j.eng.2026.08.026

Engineering ›› :202608026 DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2026.08.026

research-article

Evasive Guidance Law Against Proportional Navigation Considering Dynamic Lag

Author information +

History +

PDF (2739KB)

Abstract

Terminal-phase evasion serves as a last-resort measure to improve target survivability against missile threats, motivating analytical evasive guidance laws that are both transparent and deployable. However, existing approaches either idealize the target maneuver as a zero-lag input or rely on adjoint integration for online command generation, thereby hindering full exploitation of evasive potential. To address this, an analytical bang-bang evasive guidance law against proportional-navigation (PN)-guided missiles is proposed in this paper, which explicitly incorporates first-order target dynamics and determines the switching direction without online adjoint integration. The key idea is to derive an analytical adjoint representation of this dynamic-lag-aware engagement model and express the associated switching function as a convergent power series, thereby enabling an error-controlled finite-order realization for low-complexity evaluation. Two special cases, corresponding to integer PN gains and matched target-missile time constants, are also derived for further simplification. Representative simulations validate numerical consistency with the adjoint-integration baseline at substantially lower runtime and demonstrate an average miss-distance gain exceeding 2 m over the zero-lag formulation, with broader applicability indicated by Monte Carlo analysis and a three-dimensional (3D) realistic engagement. Hardware deployment on a TMS320F28377D flight controller achieves an approximately 50-fold speedup within typical flight-control timing budgets, supporting practical real-time onboard implementation.

Keywords

Missile evasion / Optimal guidance / Proportional navigation / Dynamic lag / Real-time computation / Embedded implementation

Cite this article

Download citation ▾

Mengke Zhao, Libing Hou, Heng Shi, Luhua Yang, Minchi Kuang, Jihong Zhu. Evasive Guidance Law Against Proportional Navigation Considering Dynamic Lag. Engineering 202608026 DOI:10.1016/j.eng.2026.08.026

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户忘记密码

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	Seo DW, Nam HJ, Kwon OJ, Myung NH . Dynamic RCS estimation of chaff clouds. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 2012; 48(3): 2114-27.

[2]	Tian Z, Danino M, Bar—Shalom Y, Milgrom B . Missile threat detection and evasion maneuvers with countermeasures for a low—altitude aircraft. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 2023; 59(6): 7352—62.

[3]	Shinar J, Tabak R . New results in optimal missile avoidance analysis. J Guid Control Dyn 1994; 17(5): 897-902.

[4]	Karelahti J, Virtanen K, Raivio T . Near—optimal missile avoidance trajectories via receding horizon control. J Guid Control Dyn 2007; 30(5): 1287-98.

[5]	Prokopov O, Shima T . Linear quadratic optimal cooperative strategies for active aircraft protection. J Guid Control Dyn 2013; 36(3): 753-64.

[6]	Weiss M, Shima T, Castaneda D, Rusnak I . Combined and cooperative minimum—effort guidance algorithms in an active aircraft defense scenario. J Guid Control Dyn 2017; 40(5): 1241—54.

[7]	Qi N, Sun Q, Zhao J . Evasion and pursuit guidance law against defended target. Chin J Aeronauti 2017; 30(6): 1958—73.

[8]	Gong X, Chen W, Lei W, Wang J, Chen Z, Li Y . Analytical game strategies for active UAV defense considering response delays. Defence Technology 2024; 42: 191-210.

[9]	Wang P, Zhang X . Inverse optimal missile guidance law under constraints based on prescribed—time explicit reference governor. ISA Trans 2022; 129(Pt A): 395-404.

[10]	Zheng Z, Li J, Feroskhan M . Three—dimensional terminal angle constraint guidance law with class 𝐾∞ function—based adaptive sliding mode control. Aerosp Sci Technol 2024; 147: 109005.

[11]	Shima T, Shinar J . Time—varying linear pursuit—evasion game models with bounded controls. J Guid Control Dyn 2002; 25(3): 425—32.

[12]	Turetsky V, Shinar J . Missile guidance laws based on pursuit—evasion game formulations. Automatica 2003; 39(4): 607—18.

[13]	Hayoun SY, Weiss M, Shima T . A mixed L2/L𝛼 differential game approach to Pursuit—Evasion guidance. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 2016; 52(6): 2775-88.

[14]	Turetsky V, Shima T . Pursuit—evasion guidance in a switched system. SIAM J Contr Optim 2018; 56(4): 2613—33.

[15]	Turetsky V, Weiss M, Shima T . A combined linear—quadratic/bounded control differential game guidance law. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 2021; 57(5): 3452-62.

[16]	Li S, Wang C, Xie G . Optimal strategies for pursuit—evasion differential games of players with damped double integrator dynamics. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 2024; 69(8): 5278—93.

[17]	Imado F, Kuroda T . Family of local solutions in a missile—aircraft differential game. J Guid Control Dyn 2011; 34(2): 583-91.

[18]	Carr RW, Cobb RG, Pachter M, Pierce S . Solution of a pursuit—evasion game using a near—optimal strategy. J Guid Control Dyn 2018; 41(4): 841-50.

[19]	Wei X, Yang J . Optimal strategies for multiple unmanned aerial vehicles in a pursuit/evasion differential game. J Guid Control Dyn 2018; 41(8): 1799-806.

[20]	Makkapati VR, Sun W, Tsiotras P . Optimal evading strategies for two—pursuer/one—evader problems. J Guid Control Dyn 2018; 41(4): 851-62.

[21]	Fu H, Liu HHT . Justification of the geometric solution of a target defense game with faster defenders and a convex target area using the HJI equation. Automatica 2023; 149: 110811.

[22]	Yang B, Wang X, Zhang P, Li C . Resilient pursuit evasion guidance with feedback game strategy. Aerosp Sci Technol 2024; 153: 109427.

[23]	Li S, Chen M, Wang Y, Wu Q . Air combat decision—making of multiple UCAVs based on constraint strategy games. Defence Technology 2022; 18(3): 368-83.

[24]	Ren Z, Zhang D, Tang S, Xiong W, Yang Sh . Cooperative maneuver decision making for multi—UAV air combat based on incomplete information dynamic game. Defence Technology 2023; 27: 308-17.

[25]	Oshman Y, Shinar J, Weizman SA . Using a multiple—model adaptive estimator in a random evasion missile/aircraft encounter. J Guid Control Dyn 2001; 24(6): 1176-86.

[26]	Shaferman V, Shima T . Cooperative multiple—model adaptive guidance for an aircraft defending missile. J Guid Control Dyn 2010; 33(6): 1801—13.

[27]	Fonod R, Shima T . Multiple model adaptive evasion against a homing missile. J Guid Control Dyn 2016; 39(7): 1578-92.

[28]	Wang Y, Wang J, Fan S . Parameter identification of a PN—guided incoming missile using an improved multiple—model mechanism. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 2023; 59(5): 5888-99.

[29]	Liu C, Sun S, Tao C, Shou Y, Xu B . Optimizing evasive maneuvering of planes using a flight quality driven model. Sci China Inf Sci 2024; 67(3): 132206.

[30]	Tang H, Tang Z, Chen G, Guo J . Collision—inducing method for UAV evasive maneuvers based on receding horizon optimization. Defence Technology 2025; 50: 141-54.

[31]	Yan M, Yang R, Zhao Y, Yue L, Zhao X . Exoatmospheric evasion guidance law with total energy limit via constrained reinforcement learning. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci 2024; 25(4): 1361-79.

[32]	Li X, Wang X, Zhou H, Li Y . A novel evasion guidance for hypersonic morphing vehicle via intelligent maneuver strategy. Chin J Aeronauti 2024; 37(5): 441-61.

[33]	Yan M, Yang R, Zhang Y, Yue L, Hu D . A hierarchical reinforcement learning method for missile evasion and guidance. Sci Rep 2022; 12(1): 18888.

[34]	Liu X, Li S, Xin M . Survey of trajectory optimization methods for mars entry and powered descent. J Guid Control Dyn 2026; 49(1): 216-39.

[35]	Julich PM, Borg DA . Proportional navigation vs an optimally evading, constant—speed target in two dimensions. J Spacecr Rockets 1970; 7(12): 1454-57.

[36]	Slater GL, Wells WR . Optimal evasive tactics against a proportional navigation missile with time delay. J Spacecr Rockets 1973; 10(5): 309—13.

[37]	Shinar J, Steinberg D . Analysis of optimal evasive maneuvers based on a linearized two—dimensional kinematic model. J Aircr 1977; 14(8): 795-802.

[38]	Forte I, Steinberg A, Shinar J . The effects of nonlinear kinematics in optimal evasion. Optim Control Appl Methods 1983; 4(2): 139-52.

[39]	Ben—Asher J, Cliff EM, Kelley HJ . Optimal evasion with a path—angle constraint and against two pursuers. J Guid Control Dyn 1988; 11(4): 300-4.

[40]	Ben—Asher JZ, Cliff EM . Optimal evasion against a proportionally guided pursuer. J Guid Control Dyn 1989; 12(4): 598-600.

[41]	Shinar J, Rotsztein Y, Bezner E . Analysis of three—dimensional optimal evasion with linearized kinematics. J Guid Control 1979; 2(5): 353-60.

[42]	Shima T . Optimal cooperative pursuit and evasion strategies against a homing missile. J Guid Control Dyn 2011; 34(2): 414-25.

[43]	Turetsky V, Shima T . Target evasion from a missile performing multiple switches in guidance law. J Guid Control Dyn 2016; 39(10): 2364-73.

[44]	Hou L, Wang J, Kuang M, He S . Practical implementation of optimal bang—bang evasive guidance. J Guid Control Dyn 2025; 48(3): 707—13.

[45]	Gong X, Chen W, Chen Z, Yuan W . Closed—form solutions of miss distance for higher—order guidance system. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 2024; 60(2): 2331-49.

[46]	Du Q, Hu Y, Jing W, Gao C . Three—dimensional target evasion strategy without missile guidance information. Aerosp Sci Technol 2025; 157: 109857.

[47]	Weiss M, Shima T . Minimum effort pursuit/evasion guidance with specified miss distance. J Guid Control Dyn 2016; 39(5): 1069-79.

[48]	Shaferman V. Near—optimal evasion from pursuers employing modern linear guidance laws. J Guid Control Dyn 2021; 44(10): 1823-35.

[49]	Mishley A, Shaferman V . Near—optimal evasion from acceleration bounded modern pursuers. J Guid Control Dyn 2025; 48(4): 793-807.

[50]	Zarchan P. Tactical and strategic missile guidance. 6th ed. Reston: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.; 2012.

[51]	Weiss M . Adjoint method for missile performance analysis on state—space models. J Guid Control Dyn 2005; 28(2): 236-48.

[52]	Shi H, Cheng Z, Kuang M, Zhu J, Yan X, Li X . Four—stage guidance law for impact time and angle control based on the Bezier curve. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 2024; 60(4): 3766—78.

[53]	Dong W, Deng F, Wang C, Wang J, Xin M . Three—dimensional spatial—temporal cooperative guidance without active speed control. J Guid Control Dyn 2023; 46(10): 1981-96.

[54]	Hou L, He S . Optimal evasive guidance against linear optimal guidance laws. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 2026; 62: 269-84.

[55]	Patterson MA, Rao AV . GPOPS—II: a MATLAB software for solving multiple—phase optimal control problems using hp—adaptive Gaussian quadrature collocation methods and sparse nonlinear programming. ACM Trans Math Softw 2014; 41(1): 1-37.