Patent Grant
7834300
This application claims rights under 35 USC 119(e) from U.S. application Ser. No. 60/650,710, filed Feb. 7, 2005; the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to armaments and more particularly to guided munitions. Even more particularly, the invention relates to a method and system for guiding and controlling a munition by making corrections to the trajectory based on bore sight angle verses time history.
2. Background Information
Mortars are one of the most commonly employed weapons in a ground combat unit. The traditional role of mortars has been to provide close and continuous fire support for maneuvering forces. Military history has repeatedly demonstrated the effectiveness of mortars. Their rapid, high-angle, plunging fires are invaluable against dug-in enemy troops and targets in defilade, which are not vulnerable to attack by direct fires. One of the major disadvantages of mortars is their comparatively low accuracy, and as a result mortars are becoming less effective in today's precision combat environment. Equipping a mortar round with a precision guidance package will increase its accuracy, enabling the mortar to be a precision munition that will be significantly more effective in wartime situations. For maximum utility, the guidance package preferably should be an inexpensive retrofit to current munitions, with a cost in production that allows its use in all situations, either as a guided or unguided weapon.
Unguided munitions are subject to aim error and wind disturbances. These often cause the munition to miss the target completely or require many rounds to complete the fire mission due to the large CEP (Circular Error Probability). Current approaches to guided weapons are expensive and are used on larger long range weapons. The approach described in this disclosure results in significantly lower cost and smaller size. This allows use with small to medium caliber weapons and significantly improves CEP which also results in a significant reduction in the quantity of rounds required to complete the fire mission which in turn results in lower overall cost and improved crew survivability. In addition, another benefit to this approach is the virtual elimination of collateral damage due to errant rounds impacting non-targeted areas.
Mortars are typically unguided or guided by an expensive G&C (guidance and control) system. The cost is high for current guided mortars and unguided mortars have poor accuracy. Also, unguided mortars result in unacceptable collateral damage, excess cost due to large number of rounds required to blanket target area, and expose the mortar crew to counterbattery fire due to large time required to drop the necessary shells to saturate the target.
Unlike powered rockets, mortars and ballistic rounds travel in a ballistic path. It is possible to modify the round by adding large control surfaces so that it can glide. However, this modification requires large wings which could destabilize smaller caliber rounds. In addition, large wings must retract to allow launch from a gun. The large retractable wings are mechanically complex and expensive. A low cost alternative is based on nose mounted canards. In this case, the projectiles maneuverability is limited to less than one G. Thus, the round must take a ballistic path to the target. It is not possible to use a direct homing approach because the target's desired look angle is not at bore sight for a ballistic path and the control surfaces do not have sufficient maneuver capacity to cause the round to fly straight to the target. Platforms such as rockets are able to approach a target in a direct (non-ballistic) path. However this approach is not practical for an unpowered mortar or munition which normally follows only a ballistic trajectory.
The prior art apparatus, systems and methods require considerable, complex, hardware into which a guidance algorithm is integrated. This drives the cost of the individual round excessively and impacts overall round performance, requiring special compensation, for example, to preserve stability. Prior art apparatus suffer from a large CEP and possess no capability against moving targets, this being directly attributable to the highly limited maneuver basket. Prior methods also required costly hardware to support the guidance algorithm integration.
For the basic mortar/small caliber munition there is currently no satisfactory method of guidance and control. For large caliber weapons, a terminal seeker with a direct approach to the target can be incorporated. Use of a direct approach limits the maneuver range. All known existing methods are of little practical use due to cost and accuracy limitations for small and medium caliber munitions.
Therefore there is a need for an accurate and cost effective means for guiding small caliber munitions which follow a ballistic path toward a target, such as mortar shells. There is also a need for an ultra low cost G&C approach for mortar shells which is compatible with a large class of rounds. Also a control algorithm and method is needed to steer a mortar or munition having a limited maneuverability when coupled with appropriate aerodynamic controls. Furthermore, there is a need for a control algorithm that significantly improves mortar/munition terminal accuracy, resulting in reduced cost to prosecute the target, minimizes collateral damage, and increases crew survivability.
According to the present invention a guidance and control method and associated algorithm makes corrections to the munitions trajectory based on the expected bore sight angle vs. time history. The approach works with a limited resolution sensor by looking at pixel crossing times and allows corrections to be done early in the flight. Since the maneuver range is proportional to the square of time to go, the present invention results in a significantly greater maneuver. In the present invention crossing time is compared to a nominal time and is used to make a range correction. The algorithm outputs command information which is sent to a guidance processor which in turn generates the appropriate commands which are sent to control canards mounted on the munition for changing the munition's flight toward a target. Due to physical limitations, the algorithm must be highly efficient to code and implement, and must be capable of a high level of integration with the seeker hardware embodiment which is believed accomplished by the present invention.
The subject invention provides a method and associated control algorithm that allows small, low G control surfaces to steer a projectile to the intended target. The algorithm used in the method of the present invention is based on perturbation of the ballistic path. The maneuver envelope is maximized by starting the correction as early as possible during the flight.
Another aspect of the invention provides a method which initially controls the roll of the munition by use of a plurality of rate gyros which provide input to a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) control loop which supplies steering commands to certain of the guidance control surfaces. Preferably, the selected control surfaces deroll the munition.
A still further feature of the invention is the providing of up/down steering commands to certain of the guidance surfaces to correct for range error depending upon the comparison of the actual flight time of the munition with the expected nominal flight time of the munition.
Another feature of the invention is to provide left/right steering commands to certain of the control surfaces by the cross-track location of a pixel developed by an optical array of photodetectors with respect to a central axis of the munition as the homing seeker and detector oscillates slowly back and forth across the centerline of the detector array when an optical illuminator and detector optics is utilized by the seeker subsystem.
A further feature of the invention is providing the speed of the munition and time of flight to a trajectory estimator processor which supplies information to a control processor which receives bore sight angle information from the seeker subsystem to calculate the required up/down steering commands for controlling the guidance control surfaces.
The present invention is further described with reference to the accompanying drawings wherein:
Similar numbers refer to similar parts throughout the drawings.
A preferred embodiment of the control system and method of the present invention for guiding a munition having a ballistic flight path toward a target is shown diagrammatically in
Munition 1 can be discharged from a usual mortar launcher 16 (
In one embodiment, target 23 can be illuminated by means of a standoff illuminator 25 which projects a beam 26 onto the target. Beam 26 can be a laser or other type of optical detectable beam. The optical illuminator at target 23 can also be a radiation emitting tag 29 or various other homing devices which emit a detectable signal. The device is placed at the target by various means such as being propelled to the target from a launcher or secretly placed at the target prior to the launch of munition 1, or by various other types of delivery means. These optical illuminators or other types of radiation devices provide a homing signal which is detected by the guidance and control system for carrying out the method of the present invention. The homing device can also be the actual target itself, such as radio frequency (RF) signals emitted by communication signals from the target if an RF guidance mode is utilized instead of the optical system discussed herein. The main feature of the homing device regardless of its particular type of radiation signals produced thereby and method of arriving at the target site, is that it will radiate a recognized signal to direct munition 1 to the target. An optical target illuminator if used as the homing device, preferably will operate at a frequency not visible by the human eye, such as infrared (IR), preventing it from being exposed to an enemy at the target site. Furthermore, the illuminator may operate at a coded frequency which must be validated by munition 1 in order to arm the munition for explosion upon reaching the target.
One type of ballistic guidance control system (G&C) for carrying out the method of the present invention is indicated generally at 30, and is shown particularly in schematic block diagram form in
Optical subsystem 32 includes seeker optics 36 and a detector array 37 formed by a plurality of photodetectors arranged in a section of a sphere. Subsystem 32 communicates with processor subsystem 33 as shown by Arrow 39 (
Steering commands are supplied by processor subsystem 33 to flight control subsystem 34, and in particular to a plurality of preferably drive motors 46 which are connected to a plurality of drive shafts mounted on the nose of the munition (
Also located in fuse housing 10 (
The guidance and control system 30 and various components discussed above and shown particularly in
In addition to inputs from optical seeker subsystem 32, processor subsystem 33 can receive inputs from the RAT as to the time of flight and apogee determination, a G-switch launcher detector for accurate launch determination, and the input from a thumb wheel switch 66 for authentication code selection as shown in
Further features of the ballistic guidance control system 30 and method of the present invention is shown in
Errors in cross range are addressed by a conventional direct homing approach because there is no effect in terms of vertical acceleration required. However, a reference generator 77 is used to account for any angle of attack caused by the non-zero canard deflection. Also, maximum deflection is applied until it is determined that munition 1 is on a nominal path to the target. In the case of cross range, this is a straight line (ground track) to the target.
To simplify operation it is desired that the user not be required to provide any trajectory data to the round. To allow this, the algorithm uses gyros 44 and air data from the Ram Air Turbine to estimate the trajectory. A pitch/yaw oscillation estimator 79 is supplied with the pitch rate and yaw rate from the pitch gyro 44A and yaw gyro 44B for supplying roll data to the L/R and U/D steering loops 72 and 73, respectively as shown in
Guidance and Control Inputs to Detection Processing and Tracking
The approach of the present invention taken for guidance of munition 1 is to combine both “brute force” navigation to the target where the mortar flies a straight line to the target and “ballistic correction” which requires small steering corrections. Key to the navigation approach is target detection and tracking. At the start of control, discrete optical sensor output (seeker output) provided to processor subsystem 33 is used to estimate “down” and adjust the nominal ballistic trajectory based upon detection of the target through processing of the optical seeker quantized data. Range adjustment is based on the bore sight look down angle temporal history, and cross range control is based on the left/right centering error, data for which is an output of the optical seeker subassembly. As the flight progresses, the bore sight look down angle approaches zero. When the lookdown angle is small, then the direct homing approach is used. This approach is selected because it takes advantage of the features of both approaches. The detection processing algorithm 41, through analysis of the seeker output, controls the actual technique selection which is then acted upon through the guidance and control algorithm of the present invention.
The “ballistic correction” approach does not require a high g vertical steering offset. In contrast, the “brute force” approach needs a large command in the early portion of the controlled flight. This favors using a “ballistic correction” at the start of the flight. This approach also eases demands on the detection processing and tracking algorithm.
During the final portion of the controlled flight, the required steering offset is smaller and a “brute force” approach can be used. The advantage of the “brute force” approach is that it is insensitive to trajectory estimation error or down estimation, both factors ease the burden on the detection processing and tracking algorithms providing an intrinsic robustness.
The approach to aerodynamic control is to stabilize the roll vector of the mortar round, preferably deroll the munition body. As manufactured, a typical mortar round or similar type of munition is free to roll. Since the existence of body roll is indeterminate initially upon launch tube exit, the roll vector itself cannot be relied on to provide any method of control. Any optical sensor would either have to be derolled or have an excessively large field of regard (FOR) to be able to acquire and track the target at the extreme acquisition ranges in any arbitrary attitude. Additionally, the processing to determine the “down” vector is greatly simplified with a stabilized roll component.
The approach of the present invention for guiding the munition toward a target is shown diagrammatically in
An initial set of key performance features for the optical seeker subsystem are shown in
In a preferred embodiment, the seeker optics 36 has a 20-mm entrance-aperture diameter, with a field of regard (FOR) of ±10° cross-track and +6° to −11° along-track as shown by body axis graph 75 in
Since the detector array is centered on the optical axis, the entire optical system will be canted down 6° relative to a central axis of the munition body, in order to provide the required FOR of −11° to +6° in the along-track direction. A central hole 84 in a lens element 85 provides the necessary clearance for detector array 37 to be bonded to a central flat area on a second lens element 86. Array 37 is a non-imaging optic detector array mounted as a central obscuration on lens element 86.
Detection processing and tracking is intimately tied to optical seeker output performance. The tracking is established when a target, in particular an illuminating tag, appears as a pixel in a portion of the optical array. Position is determined and steering commands generated in order to null the error in both the cross track and along track axis. Canting of the optical array reduces the cost of the system by eliminating the need for a complete spherical array of radiation detectors.
Control Processor System
The control processor subsystem 33 performs three primary functions: detection processing of the seeker output to validate the correct one of a number of possible authentication codes from the illuminator if used in the munition, and provide validated seeker outputs for navigation; secondly, establish roll control of the mortar round based on included inertial sensors (gyros 44), preferably negating any roll of the munition (PID control loop 71); and thirdly, provide steering commands to the flight control subsystem canards 15 based on roll control and seeker outputs. In addition to inputs from the optical seeker subsystem 32, the control processor subsystem, and in particular trajectory estimator 70 thereof (
Seeker Detection Processing—A number of different approaches can be utilized for efficient application of signal processing to further optimize the receiver performance. To minimize cost, signal processing is combined with the requirement for temporal discrimination for multiple homing illuminators. The approach selected is a two pulse coincidence gate where the coincidence time was selective for 1 of 16 different windows. The physical selection is with a rotary switch located on the external periphery of the fuse shell.
Simulations of signal acquisition with a signal to noise ratio (SNR) consistent with a 0.1/sec false alarm rate and adequate detection probability (>6 dB) have demonstrated that a signal can be reliably acquired within 64 msec (
Roll Control—Zero roll is maintained by using the Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) control loop indicated generally at 71, (
Steering Control—Steering control has two separate components: YAW (left/right) control, in which the canards, acting in pairs, provide horizontal displacement, and Elevation (up/down) in which the canards, again operating in pairs, provide an increment or decrement to the projectile range. Two of the diagonally opposed canards also provide the roll control discussed above.
Input to the flight or steering control subsystem comes from the seeker detection processor 82, which provides information regarding the mostly likely pixel array element at rates between 10 Hz (laser designators) and 1 KHz (seeker illuminator). The steering control processor estimates the bore sight offset location at >10 Hz rate. This allows the steering control processor to provide a finer estimate than the seeker processor provides.
Left/Right Steering Correction—The horizontal steering correction term is determined from the left/right centering error determined from the sensor array 37 when an optical seeker subsystem is used for carrying out the method of the present invention. This error is used to determine the necessary correction to drive the canards to correct any lateral aiming error. The flight control subsystem also monitors the bore sight angle and accounts for any angle of attack (AOA) developed because of the steering command and repositions the canards accordingly. An outline of this process is shown in
Up/Down Steering Correction—Vertical steering correction is done in a similar manner to the horizontal steering correction. However, unlike the left/right correction where the desired horizontal angle of attack is known and equals zero (at the detector array centerline of body axis graph 75), the up/down correction requires a vertical angle of attack which is dependent on the mortar trajectory and time to impact. By using the RAT developed time-to-apogee, an estimate of the mortar trajectory and remaining time of flight can be determined. A table in the processor subsystem can store the allowable mortar trajectories and will fit the best match to the true trajectory. Using this desired trajectory the desired vertical angle of attack can be determined at each 10 Hz update point. The true vertical angle of attack can then be compared to this desired angle of attack and the necessary correction can be made. The up/down steering correction is combined appropriately with the roll correction to deflect the canards as appropriate.
As shown in
The trajectory correction approach of the present invention involves estimation of the trajectory and a determination of the impact point relative to the target. If the mortar is on course, the target will be centered with respect to the left/right center line (
To correct along-track errors, the “vertical” error signal is computed from the difference between the nominal bore sight look down angle and the bore sight look down angle measured by the seeker. To implement this approach, the trajectory is estimated by using time to apogee and launch speed. This trajectory estimate is then used to provide the nominal look down angle to the impact point. This nominal angle is time dependent and decreases a few degrees per second. This nominal value is compared to the seeker value detected by the seeker subsystem. If the nominal value exceeds the seeker value then the current trajectory will pass over the target. In this case a downward correction is applied which actuates the appropriate canards as shown in
In the absence of gravity, the nominal bore sight look down angle would be zero. In this case the mortar has a “direct fly in” approach. The effect of gravity diminishes as the mortar closes on the target for short range shots using high quadrant elevation (>45 degrees) because the approach angle is closer to vertical. Thus the ballistic correction approach morphs into a direct fly in approach.
When a maneuver command is applied, the mortar develops an angle of attack (AOA). This AOA shifts the look angle to the target. As an example, for a 0.2 g maneuver a 6-DOF model shows that the AOA will be about 1.9 degrees. Thus, if the projectile is initially aimed 1 degree to the right of the target in the horizontal direction and a 0.2 g left maneuver is commanded, the target look angle will be 0.9 degrees to the right. As the mortar velocity vector turns left towards the target, the look angle will move further to the right. This does not indicate an over shoot. In fact the turn must be continued until the look angle is 1.9 degrees to the right. At this point the canards are zeroed and the AOA trims back to zero. With zero AOA and the velocity vector pointing to the target, the look angle will be zero. It is important to account for this AOA effect when steering because the expected AOA will be of comparable magnitude to the aim angle error.
The detection and target tracking functionality are integrated within the overall guidance and control system shown in
Gyros 44, preferably use MEMS technology and sense body rate, (yaw, pitch, and roll). These gyros are incorporated into the G&C system 30 and preferably are mounted in an orthogonal array in the mid-body section of the fuse. These gyros as commercially available, such as from Analog Devices, Inc., and have been demonstrated to over 2 kg's acceleration loads and are able to sustain launch at the 4.5 kg's level without modification. Other components can be obtained from demonstrated high g shock technologies in order to meet the required setback levels. Thus no new component technology is required to develop, host, integrate, test, and field the detection processing and target tracking algorithm of the present invention, thereby reducing the cost of fuse 10.
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the method, apparatus and system of the present invention provides highly efficient means compatible with existing processor technology. Furthermore, the method, system and apparatus of the present invention also supports a variety of seeker output designs and interfaces and are compatible with multiple coded input signals and need not be the optical system shown in the drawings and discussed above.
While the present invention has been described in connection with the preferred embodiments of the various figures, it is to be understood that other similar embodiments may be used or modifications and additions may be made to the described embodiment for performing the same function of the present invention without deviating therefrom. Therefore, the present invention should not be limited to any single embodiment, but rather construed in breadth and scope in accordance with the recitation of the appended claims.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/US2006/004531 | 2/7/2006 | WO | 00 | 12/8/2006 |
| Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WO2006/086528 | 8/17/2006 | WO | A |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2403387 | McLennan | Jul 1946 | A |
| 2448007 | Ayres | Aug 1948 | A |
| 2969018 | Bowden et al. | Jan 1961 | A |
| 2997594 | MacNeille | Aug 1961 | A |
| 2997595 | Cary et al. | Aug 1961 | A |
| 3000307 | Trotter, Jr. | Sep 1961 | A |
| 3001186 | Baltzer | Sep 1961 | A |
| 3065931 | Dixon et al. | Nov 1962 | A |
| 3206144 | Welti | Sep 1965 | A |
| 3448271 | Aldrich et al. | Jun 1969 | A |
| 3523659 | Eppherson, Jr. | Aug 1970 | A |
| 3737122 | Solov et al. | Jun 1973 | A |
| 3843076 | King et al. | Oct 1974 | A |
| 3990657 | Schott | Nov 1976 | A |
| 4111382 | Kissinger | Sep 1978 | A |
| 4136343 | Heffner et al. | Jan 1979 | A |
| 4264907 | Durand et al. | Apr 1981 | A |
| 4288049 | Alpers | Sep 1981 | A |
| 4347996 | Grosso | Sep 1982 | A |
| 4383663 | Nichols | May 1983 | A |
| 4522356 | Lair et al. | Jun 1985 | A |
| 4606514 | Sundermeyer | Aug 1986 | A |
| 4662580 | Nelson | May 1987 | A |
| 4711412 | Wallermann | Dec 1987 | A |
| 4856733 | Lachmann | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4883239 | Lachmann et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
| 5260709 | Nowakowski | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5467940 | Steuer | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5478028 | Snyder | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5631654 | Karr | May 1997 | A |
| 5647558 | Linick | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5660355 | Waymeyer | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5762291 | Hollis et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5788178 | Barrett, Jr. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5816531 | Hollis et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5826821 | Brandon et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 6069584 | Johnson | May 2000 | A |
| 6244536 | Cloutier | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6345785 | Harkins et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6467721 | Kautzsch et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6621059 | Harris et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6722609 | Linick | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 7079070 | Kongelbeck et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20070241227 A1 | Oct 2007 | US |
