Proportional Navigation

Guidance System
Notes based on Zarchan’s Tactical Missile Guidance
Contents

Contents 1

1 Proportional Navigation Method of Guidance - Zarchan 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.4 Two-Dimensional Engagement Geometry for Proportional Navigation . . 2

1.4.1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4.2 Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4.3 Calculation of Missile Acceleration Components . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.4.4 Initial Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.5 LINEARISED PROPORTIONAL NAVIGATION GUIDANCE . . . . . . 7

1.5.1 Non-linear Form of Equation for Relative Acceleration . . . . . . 8

1.5.2 Linear Form of Equation for Relative Acceleration . . . . . . . . . 8

1.6 Simulation of Linearised Proportional Navigation Guidance . . . . . . . . 9

1.6.1 Initial Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.7 Comparison of Simulation Results

Basic Proportional Navigation Vs Linearised Proportional Navigation . . 11

1
 1.7.1 Head-on-Fire Non-maneuvering Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.7.2 Head-on-Fire Target Maneuvering with 1-g . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.7.3 Head-on-Fire Target Maneuvering with 3-g . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.7.4 Head-on-Fire Non-maneuvering Target with Heading Error -20 de-

grees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.8 PROPORTIONAL NAVIGATION GUIDANCE AND ZERO EFFORT

MISS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.8.1 Derivation for Zero Effort Miss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

References 20

2
Chapter 1

Proportional Navigation Method of

Guidance - Zarchan

1.1 Introduction

Proportional navigation guidance is used in a majority of tactical radar, infrared

(IR) and TV guided missiles. It gained popularity because of its simplicity, effectiveness
and ease of implementation.Zarchan[1]

1.2 Historical Background

The Lark missile which was first tested in December, 1950 successfully was the first
missile to use proportional navigation. However proportional navigation dates back to
World War II and was apparently known to the Germans though they did not apply it
practically in their missiles. Apparently proportional navigation was studied by C.Yuan
and others at the RCA Laboratories during World War II sponsored by the U.S.Navy. It
was implemented first by Hughes Aircraft Company in a tactical missile using a pulsed
radar system. Raytheon further developed proportional navigation and implemented it
in a tactical continuous wave radar homing missile.

1
1.3 Definition

The proportional navigation guidance law basically generates acceleration commands

which are perpendicular to the instantaneous missile-target line-of-sight (LOS). These
acceleration commands are proportional to the LOS rate and closing velocity and ex-
pressed mathematically as

nC = kvc λ̇ (1.1)

where nc is the acceleration command (m/sec2 ), k is the effective navigation ratio (usu-
ally in the range 3 to 5), vc is the missile-target closing velocity (m/sec), and λ̇ is the
time derivative of the line-of-sight angle, λ , or simply the line-of-sight rate (rad/sec).

The acceleration commands thus generated are given to the missile autopilot (pitch
or yaw) and by the movement of the control surfaces (or other means of control such
as thrust vector control or lateral divert engines or squibs in case of exo-atmospheric
strategic interceptors) the missile is made to move in the desired direction towards the
target.

The line-of-sight rate is usually measured by the seeker. The closing velocity is
measured by a Doppler radar in case of tactical radar homing missiles whereas in tactical
IR missiles or TV guided missiles, the closing velocity is ”guestimated”.

1.4 Two-Dimensional Engagement Geometry for Pro-

portional Navigation

Consider a two-dimensional point mass missile-target engagement geometry as shown

in figure below:-

2
Figure 1.1: Two-Dimensional Engagement Geometry for Proportional Navi-
gation

The co-ordinate system used is that of inertial co-ordinates fixed to the surface of a
flat-Earth model. Thus the components of acceleration and velocities along the two axes
or directions can be integrated without having to worry about the additional terms due
to the Coriolis effect. Axis 1 represents the down range whereas axis 2 may represent
the altitude or cross-range.

1.4.1 Assumptions

(a) Both the missile and target are assumed as point masses travelling at constant
velocity.

(b) The gravitational and drag effects are neglected for simplicity.

1.4.2 Derivation

(a) Consider that the missile is heading towards the target with a velocity, Vm, and
lead angle, L, with respect to the line-of-sight. The lead angle is theoretically the
angle at which the missile must be oriented to be on a collision triangle with the

3
 target. If the missile is on the correct lead angle, no further acceleration commands
are required for the missile to hit the target.

(b) In practice, the missile is launched towards an approximate intercept point since
we do not know in advance what the target will do in future. Thus the missile will
not be exactly on a collision triangle initially. The initial angular deviation of the
missile from the collision triangle is known as heading error (HE).

(c) The imaginary line connecting the missile and target is known as line-of-sight
(LOS). The angle the LOS makes with respect to the fixed reference axis 1 is
denoted as ?.

(d) The instantaneous separation in range between the missile and target is denoted
as RT M .

(e) The guidance will be considered proper if and only if the range between the missile
and the target at the expected time of intercept is as small as possible or zero.
The point of closest approach of missile and target is known as miss distance.

(f) The closing velocity, Vc , is defined as the negative rate of change of the distance
from the missile to the target, i.e.,

Vc = −ṘT M (1.2)

At the end of the engagement, i.e., when the missile and target are in closest
proximity, the sign of Vc will change. From calculus, a function is either minimum
or maximum when its derivative is zero. Thus when RT M is minimum, closing
velocity velocity will be zero.

(g) The velocity of the target is denoted as VT and the target acceleration perpendic-
ular to the target velocity vector is denoted as nT . Thus the angular velocity of
the target can be expressed as
nT
β̇ = (1.3)
VT
where β is the flight path angle of the target which can be obtained by integrating
eqn.1.3. Thus the target velocity components with respect to the two axes 1 and
2 is given as

VT 1 = −VT cosβ (1.4)

VT 2 = VT sinβ (1.5)

4
 Since velocity is rate of change of position, it follows that

ṘT 1 = VT 1 (1.6)
ṘT 2 = VT 2 (1.7)

where RT 1 and RT 2 are the components of target position along axis 1 and 2
respectively.

(h) The missile acceleration components with respect to the two axes are given by
aM 1 and aM 2 . The missile velocity and position components can be expressed as
differential equations involving the missile acceleration components as

V̇M 1 = aM 1 (1.8)
V̇M 2 = aM 2 (1.9)
ṘM 1 = VM 1 (1.10)
ṘM 2 = VM 2 (1.11)

1.4.3 Calculation of Missile Acceleration Components

The missile acceleration components can be found from the components of relative
missile-target separation as follows:-

(a) The components of relative missile-target separation along axis 1 and 2 can be
defined as

ṘT M 1 = RT 1 − RM 1 (1.12)
ṘT M 2 = RT 2 − RM 2 (1.13)

(b) Using trigonometry, the line of sight angle in terms of the relative separation
components can be found as
RT M 2
λ = tan−1 (1.14)
RT M 1

5
 (c) In a similar manner, the components of relative velocity along axis 1 and 2 are
defined as

V̇T M 1 = VT 1 − VM 1 (1.15)
V̇T M 2 = VT 2 − VM 2 (1.16)

(d) The relative separation between the target and missile RT M can be expressed in
terms of its inertial components along axis 1 and 2 by application of distance
formula as
q
RT M = (RT2 M 1 − RT2 M 2 ) (1.17)

(e) Differentiating equation 1.17 and adding a negative sign gives the closing velocity
Vc as (Since the derivative of position is velocity),
RT M 1 VT M 1 + RT M 2 VT M 2
Vc = (1.18)
RT M

(f) Differentiating eqn.1.14 gives the line of sight rate as

RT M 1 VT M 2 − RT M 2 VT M 1
λ̇ = (1.19)
RT2 M

(g) The missile acceleration command (nC ) can be found by substituting equations
1.18 and 1.19 in equation 1.1. The missile acceleration components in the Earth
co-ordinates are given from trigonometry as

aM 1 = −nC sinλ (1.20)

aM 2 = nC cosλ (1.21)

1.4.4 Initial Conditions

A missile employing proportional navigation is fired in a direction to lead the target and
thus forms a collision triangle with the line-of-sight. The angle between the instantaneous
missile path or its velocity vector and the line-of-sight is called the missile lead angle,
L. The theoretical missile lead angle can be found by application of law of sines as
VT sin(β + λ)
L = sin−1 (1.22)
VM

6
Since there is an initial angular deviation of the missile from collision triangle given by
the heading error, HE, the initial missile velocity components in terms of the theoretical
lead angle, L, and actual heading error, HE, can be expressed as

VM 1 (0) = VM cos(L + HE + λ) (1.23)

VM 2 (0) = VM cos(L + HE + λ) (1.24)

1.5 LINEARISED PROPORTIONAL NAVIGATION

GUIDANCE

Linearisation of Missile-Target Geometry can be carried out with the engagement

model for linearization which is as shown in figure below:-

Figure 1.2: Linearised Two-Dimensional Engagement Geometry for Propor-

tional Navigation

7
1.5.1 Non-linear Form of Equation for Relative Acceleration

The relative acceleration i.e., difference between missile and target acceleration can be
obtained from the engagement geometry as

ÿ = nT cosβ − nC cosλ (1.25)

where nT is the target acceleration nC is the missile acceleration β is the target flight
path angle λ is the line-of-sight angle.

1.5.2 Linear Form of Equation for Relative Acceleration

(a) If the target flight path angle and line-of-sight angle are small, the cosine terms
are approximately unity and equation 1.25 can be rewritten as

ÿ = nT − nC (1.26)

(b) Also from the engagement geometry, the expression for line-of-sight angle can be
linearised as
y
λ= (1.27)
RT M

(c) For the missile launched at a target in head-on-fire case, the closing velocity can
be approximated as

VC = VT + VM (1.28)

And for the missile launched at a target in tail-fire case, the closing velocity can
be approximated as

VC = VM − VT (1.29)

(d) If t is the instantaneous time and tF is the total flight time of engagement, the
time-to-go until the end of flight is given as

tGO = tF − t (1.30)

Where tF can be calculated as

RT M 0
tF = (1.31)
VC

8
 (e) The relative distance between the missile and target changes at a rate proportional
to the closing velocity and can be approximated as

ṘT M = −VC (1.32)

Hence the relative distance between the missile and target can be calculated by
integration of equation 1.32. Alternatively, the relative distance can also be calcu-
lated as

RT M = VC tGO (1.33)

1.6 Simulation of Linearised Proportional Naviga-

tion Guidance

Simulations are carried out using the block diagram shown.

Figure 1.3: Block Diagram for Linearised Proportional Navigation

To find out how effective the guidance is after this linearization, the target and missile
positions are calculated using the various equations given below. By plotting these
missile and target positions, the engagement geometry can be displayed.

9
 (a) The velocity of the target is denoted as VT and the target acceleration perpendic-
ular to the target velocity vector is denoted as nT . Thus the angular velocity of
the target can be expressed as
nT
β̇ = (1.34)
VT
where β is the flight path angle of the target which can be obtained by integrating
eqn.1.34. Thus the target velocity components with respect to the two axes 1 and
2 is given as

VT 1 = −VT cosβ (1.35)

VT 2 = VT sinβ (1.36)

(b) The missile range co-ordinates are calculated from the relative distance between
target and missile (RTM) as follows:-

RT M 1 = RT M cosβ (1.37)
p 2
RT M 2 = (RT M − RT2 M 1 ) (1.38)
RM 1 = RT 1 − RT M 1 (1.39)
RM 2 = RT 2 − RT M 2 (1.40)

1.6.1 Initial Conditions

Using small angle approximation again,

ẏ(0) = −VM (L0 + HE0 + λ0 ) (1.41)

Where
RT M 20
λ0 = tan−1 (1.42)
RT M 10

and
VT sin(β0 + λ0 )
L0 = sin−1 (1.43)
VM
To satisfy the small angle approximation condition, the down range is chosen as 4000 m
and the cross range or altitude is chosen as 500 m.

10
 1.7 Comparison of Simulation Results
Basic Proportional Navigation Vs Linearised Pro-
portional Navigation

1.7.1 Head-on-Fire Non-maneuvering Target

TARGET MOVING HEAD ON WITH 0g MANEUVRE K=3 MISSILE

x 10 ACCELERATION FOR TARGET MOVING HEAD ON WITH 0g MANEUVRE K=3
−12
6000 8
TARGET
MISSILE
6
5000

MISSILE ACCELERATION nc (g)

4000

2
RT2,RM2 (m)

3000
0

2000
−2

1000
−4

0 −6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
RT1,RM1(m) time(sec)

(a) Engagement Geometry (b) Missile Acceleration Acheived

Figure 1.4: Missile-Target Engagement Geometry Using Basic Proportional

Navigation Law For Non-manoeuvring Head-on-Fire Target

11
 TARGET MOVING HEAD ON WITH 0g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=20deg MISSILE ACCELERATION FOR TARGET MOVING HEAD ON 0g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=20deg
500 0.035
TARGET
450 MISSILE
0.03
400

350 0.025

MISSILE ACCELERATION nc (g)

300
0.02
RT2,RM2 (m)

250
0.015
200

150 0.01

100
0.005
50

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
RT1,RM1(m) time(sec)

(a) Engagement Geometry (b) Missile Acceleration Acheived

Figure 1.5: Missile-Target Engagement Geometry Using Linearised Propor-

tional Navigation Law For Non-manoeuvring Head-on-Fire Target

Comparison of figures 1.4 and 1.5 show that in case of basic proportional navigation
law, the missile acceleration remains more or less near zero for the entire flight time
whereas in case of linearised proportional navigation, the missile acceleration initially
jumps to around 0.035 and slowly reduces to zero towards the end of the flight time.

12
 1.7.2 Head-on-Fire Target Maneuvering with 1-g

TARGET MOVING HEAD ON WITH 1g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=0deg MISSILE ACCELERATION FOR TARGET MOVING HEAD ON 1g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=−0deg
700 3
TARGET
MISSILE
600
2.5

500

MISSILE ACCELERATION nc (g)

2

400
RT2,RM2 (m)

1.5
300

1
200

0.5
100

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
RT1,RM1(m) time(sec)

(a) Engagement Geometry (b) Missile Acceleration Acheived

Figure 1.6: Missile-Target Engagement Geometry Using Basic Proportional

Navigation Law For Head-on-Fire Target Maneuvering with 1-g

TARGET MOVING HEAD ON WITH 1g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=0deg MISSILE ACCELERATION FOR TARGET MOVING HEAD ON 1g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=0deg
700 3.5
TARGET
MISSILE
600 3

500 2.5
MISSILE ACCELERATION nc (g)

400 2
RT2,RM2 (m)

300 1.5

200 1

100 0.5

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
RT1,RM1(m) time(sec)

(a) Engagement Geometry (b) Missile Acceleration Acheived

Figure 1.7: Missile-Target Engagement Geometry Using Linearised Propor-

tional Navigation Law For Head-on-Fire Target Maneuvering with 1-g

13
 Comparison of figures 1.6 and 1.7 show that for a target manoeuvring with 1-g, in
case of the basic proportional navigation law the missile acceleration slowly builds up
to a value of nearly 3-g and then dips down suddenly to the desired target acceleration
value at the end of flight time(before it again shoots up). Whereas in case of linearised
proportional navigation law also, the missile acceleration slowly increases to almost 3-g
towards the end of flight time but then starts shooting up again, never coming close
to the desired acceleration of 1-g. This is because the linearised model overestimates
the missile acceleration requirements since it assumes that the target acceleration mag-
nitude perpendicular to line-of-sight is always the same and equal to the magnitude of
manoeuvre. Whereas, actually in case of the target turning, the component of target
acceleration perpendicular to line-of-sight decreases.

1.7.3 Head-on-Fire Target Maneuvering with 3-g

TARGET MOVING HEAD ON WITH 3g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=0deg MISSILE ACCELERATION FOR TARGET MOVING HEAD ON 3g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=−0deg
1000 7
TARGET
900 MISSILE
6
800

700 5
MISSILE ACCELERATION nc (g)

600
4
RT2,RM2 (m)

500
3
400

300 2

200
1
100

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
RT1,RM1(m) time(sec)

(a) Engagement Geometry (b) Missile Acceleration Acheived

Figure 1.8: Missile-Target Engagement Geometry Using Basic Proportional

Navigation Law For Head-on-Fire Target Maneuvering with 3-g

14
 TARGET MOVING HEAD ON WITH 3g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=0deg MISSILE ACCELERATION FOR TARGET MOVING HEAD ON 3g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=0deg
1000 10

900 9

800 TARGET 8
MISSILE
700 7

MISSILE ACCELERATION nc (g)

600 6
RT2,RM2 (m)

500 5

400 4

300 3

200 2

100 1

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
RT1,RM1(m) time(sec)

(a) Engagement Geometry (b) Missile Acceleration Acheived

Figure 1.9: Missile-Target Engagement Geometry Using Linearised Propor-

tional Navigation Law For Head-on-Fire Target Maneuvering with 3-g

Comparison of figures 1.8 and 1.9 show that for a target manoeuvring with 3-g, in
case of the basic proportional navigation law the missile acceleration slowly builds up
to a value of nearly 6-g and then dips down suddenly to the desired target acceleration
value at the end of flight time(before it again shoots up). Whereas in case of linearised
proportional navigation law, the missile acceleration increases to almost 9-g towards the
end of flight time and then starts shooting up again, never coming close to the desired
acceleration of 3-g.

15
 1.7.4 Head-on-Fire Non-maneuvering Target with Heading Er-
ror -20 degrees

TARGET MOVING HEAD ON WITH 0g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=−20deg MISSILE ACCELERATION FOR TARGET MOVING HEAD ON 0g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=−20deg
500 10
TARGET
MISSILE 9
400
8

MISSILE ACCELERATION nc (g)

300
6
RT2,RM2 (m)

200 5

4
100
3

2
0
1

−100 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
RT1,RM1(m) time(sec)

(a) Engagement Geometry (b) Missile Acceleration Acheived

Figure 1.10: Missile-Target Engagement Geometry Using Basic PN Law For

Non-manoeuvring HOF Target with HE -20 Degrees

TARGET MOVING HEAD ON WITH 0g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=−20deg MISSILE ACCELERATION FOR TARGET MOVING HEAD ON 0g MANEUVRE K=3 HE=−20deg
500 12
TARGET
MISSILE
400 10
MISSILE ACCELERATION nc (g)

300 8
RT2,RM2 (m)

200 6

100 4

0 2

−100 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
RT1,RM1(m) time(sec)

(a) Engagement Geometry (b) Missile Acceleration Acheived

Figure 1.11: Missile-Target Engagement Geometry Using Linearised PN Law

For Non-manoeuvring HOF Target with HE -20 Degrees

16
1.8 PROPORTIONAL NAVIGATION GUIDANCE
AND ZERO EFFORT MISS

Proportional navigation guidance is based on generation of acceleration commands

proportional to the line-of-sight rate. When the line-of-sight rate becomes zero, it means
that the missile and target are on a collision triangle and hence no further commands will
be generated or zero acceleration command is generated. The concept of zero effort miss
is useful in explaining proportional navigation and is defined in terms of the distance by
which the missile would miss the target at the instant when the missile stops making any
further corrections to its course while the target continues along its present course.[1]

1.8.1 Derivation for Zero Effort Miss

The two components for zero effort miss in the Earth-fixed Co-ordinate System for a
non-maneuvering target can be given by the equations

ZEM1 = RT M 1 + VT M 1 tGO (1.44)

ZEM2 = RT M 2 + VT M 2 tGO (1.45)

where tGO is the time-to-go until intercept given by the total flight time tF minus the
instantaneous time t. i.e.,

tGO = tF − t (1.46)

Once again consider the two-dimensional point mass missile-target engagement geometry
as shown in figure below:-

17
Figure 1.12: Two-Dimensional Engagement Geometry for Proportional Navi-
gation

Define ZEMP LOS as the component of the zero effort miss that is perpendicular to
the line of sight. From the figure above, ZEMP LOS is given from trigonometry as

ZEMP LOS = −ZEM1 sinλ + ZEM2 cosλ (1.47)

Substituting eqn.1.45 in eqn.1.47 and using

RT M 2
sinλ = (1.48)
RT M
RT M 1
cosλ = (1.49)
RT M
simplification yields
tGO (RT M 1 VT M 2 − RT M 2 VT M 1 )
ZEMP LOS = (1.50)
RT M
Comparing the above equation with the equation for line-of-sight rate given by eqn.1.19,
the line-of-sight rate can also be expressed by the equation
ZEMP LOS
λ̇ = (1.51)
RT M tGO
Since RT M can be approximated as

RT M = Vc tGO (1.52)

18
Hence Vc can be given as
RT M
Vc = (1.53)
tGO
substitution of eqns. 1.51 and 1.53 in equation for missile acceleration given by eqn.1.1,
the proportional navigation command in terms of the zero effort miss perpendicular to
the line-of-sight is given as
kZEMP LOS
nc = (1.54)
t2GO

1.9 Conclusion

It can be observed from the simulations that the linearised proportional navigation law
holds good for most part of the flight envelope but fails near the terminal phase and
hence can be taken as a good approximation of the non-linear basic propagation law
for most part of the flight envelope. The concept of zero effort miss based proportional
navigation command will be used to design an integrated guidance control strategy later.

19
References

[1] P. Zarchan, Tactical Missile Guidance. New York: John Wiley and Sons,Inc, 1990.

20