21th International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA, 16-18 March 2022

LOS rate estimation techniques for proportional navigation

guided missiles
Mirza Hodžić, Naser Prljača
Department of Control Systems, Robotics and Industrial Informatics
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
University of Tuzla
Bosnia and Herzegovina
mirza.hodzic@fet.ba, naser.prljaca@fet.ba

Abstract—Most modern missiles implement some variant of 𝑎𝑐 = 𝑁𝑣𝑐 𝜆̇ (1)

proportional navigation (PN) guidance law. In order to implement
this form of navigation, the missile has to measure line of sight
(LOS) rate. Devices capable to measure LOS rate are referred to
as the seekers. This article aims to present analysis of a missile
seeker mathematical models with purpose to obtain LOS rate
estimation used for implementation of PN in three dimensions.
This paper includes MATLAB simulations of developed seeker
with 6-DOF nonlinear missile mathematical model and autopilot
presented in earlier works by the authors.
Keywords-component; proportional navigation; missile seeker;
tracking loop;missile guidance; simulation; parasitic loop
I. INTRODUCTION
For a short-to-medium range homing missile Proportional
Navigation (PN) is perhaps the most widely known and used
guidance law [3], [4], [8]. A typical guided missile system
consists of three subsystems: navigation, autopilot and missile
airframe. Primary task of navigation subsystem is to obtain
commanding signals (normal accelerations) which guarantee
target intercept. These commanding lateral accelerations are
then fed into the autopilot subsystem which forces the missile to
turn in order to intercept the target. In order to generate these
commanding signals, proportional navigation requires
measurement of relative velocity between the missile and the
target and measurement of the derivative of line of sight angle
which is the elevation angle of target relative to the missile. In
[2], a simulation is shown in which these two values are
calculated using missile- target kinematics. In practice these
values are very difficult to obtain without active radar homing.
Therefore, there has to be a device which can obtain these
measurements. Such device is referred to as seeker subsystem.
Most literature considers missile seekers in two dimensions only
and somewhat separately with respect to remaining components
of guidance systems. This article aims to develop seeker model
and simulator for guidance in three dimensions and to
implement it in the simulator with missile autopilot and 6DOF
mathematical model.
II. REVIEW OF PROPORTIONAL NAVIGATION
Theoretically, the proportional navigation guidance law
issues acceleration commands perpendicular to the
instantaneous missile-target line of sight, which are proportional
to the line of sight rate and closing velocity. Mathematically, the
guidance law can be stated as:
where 𝑎𝑐 is the acceleration command, 𝑁 is designer-chosen
gain known as the effective navigation ratio, 𝑣𝑐 is the missile-
target closing velocity and the 𝜆 the line-of-sight angle [3]. The
basic philosophy behind PN is that the missile acceleration
should nullify the line-of-sight angle rate between the target and
interceptor [4]. As it is discussed in [5] there are many variants
of proportional navigation. Most importantly (1) gives the value
of commanding acceleration normal to the LOS. It is important
to note that this form requires information about target velocity,
thus in order to implement this form on PN a missile has to have
active radar device on board. More suitable variant of PN is pure
proportional navigation(PPN) where commanding acceleration
is normal to the missile velocity and the value of commanding
acceleration can be given by:
𝑎𝑐 = 𝑁𝑣𝑚 𝜆̇ (2)
Where 𝑣𝑚 denotes missile velocity in inertial frame. Here LOS
rate is multiplied by missile velocity since closing velocity
cannot be measured without active homing. It will be shown that
this does not increase miss distance. This form of PN does not
require target velocity measurements which is more suitable for
infrared (IR, IIR) seeking missiles. Furthermore, the fact that the
commanding acceleration is much easier for implementation
since PPN does not require additional coordinate
transformations from missile body frame as does true
proportional navigation. Now the only problem remaining to be
solved is the measurement of LOS rate. It is important to note
that (1) and (2) give commanding accelerations of planar case.
In three dimensions LOS rates can be calculated as following
vector product [6]
−𝒓 × 𝒗𝒄
𝝎= (3)
𝑟2
Finally, PN guidance law suitable for implementation in three
dimensions can be stated as
𝑎𝑀𝑥
𝑎
[ 𝑀𝑦 ] = 𝑁𝒗𝒎 × 𝝎 (4)
𝑎𝑀𝑧
Where 𝑎𝑀𝑥 is the axial acceleration and cannot be used for
guidance because the missile has final fuel in terminal phase,
𝑎𝑀𝑦 and 𝑎𝑀𝑧 are commanding accelerations normal to the
missile velocity and lie in horizontal and vertical plane
respectively.
 III. MECHANIZATION OF PROPORTIONAL NAVIGATION
At this point it is obvious that in order to implement PN in
three dimensions there has to exist LOS rate measurement in two
sensor instrument axes that are mutually perpendicular to the
sensor boresight (near-coincident with measured LOS to the
target). The way in which LOS rate(𝜆̇) is derived depends on the
type of target sensor that is used and how it is mounted to the
missile [7]. For example, sensors could be mounted on a
gimbaled platform to increase sensor field of view and to isolate
it from missile motion. On the other hand, sensors that do not
require large field of view could be fixed to the missile body,
these systems are referred to as strapdown seekers. Usually LOS
mechanization implies two mutually perpendicular gimbals
which are employed along with rate gyroscopes used for
platform stabilization. Each gimbal is controlled by servomotor
to ensure seeker antenna to point towards the target and only one
gimbal is enough for LOS rate estimation in one plane of motion.
Now, it can be concluded that the main functions of missile
seeker are to provide the measurements of target motion
required to mechanize the guidance law, to track the target with
the antenna or other energy-receiving device, to track the target
continuously after acquisition, measure the LOS rate, stabilize
the seeker against the missile pitching and yawing rate and to
measure closing velocity which is only possible with some
radars [8]. As mentioned earlier, every seeker has a sensor which
measures angular displacement from seeker antenna to the LOS
to the target. This angular displacement is referred to as tracking
error noted with 𝜖 is shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, missile pitch
angle is noted with 𝜃𝑚 and describes missile elevation angle
with respect to the inertial frame, 𝜃ℎ defines the angular position
of the antenna centerline relative to the missile body. 𝜖′ is a
perturbation to the true 𝜖 cause by radome refraction of the RF
energy or irdome distortion of IR energy as it passes through
the material [7]. Detailed analysis of radome refraction error will
be carried out later. 𝜃 is seeker dish angle given in inertial frame
and can be expressed as follows.
𝜃 = 𝜃ℎ + 𝜃𝑚 (5)
It must be noted that missile seeker geometry in horizontal plane
is analog to the geometry shown in Fig. 1 where missile pitch
angle is replaced with missile yaw angle. To elaborate further,
missile pitch, yaw and roll rates can be obtained via inertial rate
gyroscope and inner gimbal angles which control the platform
can be measured using a gimbal angle transducer, one transducer
for vertical and one for horizontal plane of motion. Figure 2
shows platform-based seeker mechanical structure.
Figure 1: Missile seeker geometric relations
Figure 2: Mechanical structure of platform-based seeker
IV. MISSILE SEEKER MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Since PN has tendency to point the missile to the target along
line of sight it can be argued that the seeker dish rate will always
lag line of sight.
Therefore, dynamics from seeker dish rate to LOS rate can be
described by first order transfer function as follows.
𝜃̇ 1
= (6)
𝜆̇ 𝜏𝑠 𝑠 + 1
Referencing to Fig. 1 it follows that
𝜖 = 𝜆 − 𝜃ℎ − 𝜃𝑚 (7)
Now, this equation can be used to obtain block diagram of
missile seeker, which is shown in Fig. 3. Using Laplace
transform of (7) and expressing LOS rate from (6) it can easily
be shown that
𝜖𝑚
𝜃̇ = (8)
𝜏𝑠
Previous equation means that seeker dish rate in inertial frame is
proportional to the seeker tracking error. Furthermore, since
previous expression follows from (6) it can be concluded that (8)
gives value of the seeker dish rate that will ensure zero tracking
error. This fact can also be seen from (7). It also follows from
(5) that seeker dish rate error is the same as gimbal angle rate.
Now, simulation block diagram for missile seeker can be
constructed as is shown in Fig. 3. It should be noted that the
block for gimbal control includes the gimbal driving motor itself
and continuous regulator. It should also be noted that the
difference of estimated LOS rate and dish rate is already an error
signal for gimbal motor, therefore there is no need for additional
feedbacks. Now, from the diagram, it can be shown that at low
frequencies LOS rate estimation value is given by
1
𝜆̇ = 𝜖 (9)
𝜏𝑠 𝑚
Previous equation means that the LOS rate estimation is
proportional to the measured tracking error. Now this LOS rate
value can be multiplied with effective navigation ratio and
missile velocity or closing velocity in case of active homing
radar to obtain commanding acceleration which is to be set as
reference value for the missile autopilot.

Figure 3: Missile seeker mathematical model
Furthermore, low pass filter can be used to filter out tracking
error measurement noise. In this approach the fact that the LOS
rate is embedded in the tracking error (𝜖𝑚 ) is exploited [7]. It is
obvious that the seeker tracking loop time constant may not be
known, therefore it is important to present more LOS rate
estimation methods. First approach is to obtain LOS value from
seeker angular relations and to use real differentiator to obtain
LOS rate. Another approach is to use derivatives of seeker
angles to obtain LOS rate and then to use low pass filter to filter
out the measurement noise.
V. LOS RECONSTRUCTION
From Fig. 1 it follows that
𝜆𝑚 = 𝜖𝑚 + ∫ 𝜃̇ 𝑑𝑡 (9)
Now, LOS value can be differentiated to obtain LOS rate. This
approach is valuable if missile can obtain only the measurement
of dish rate in inertial frame. This approach is shown in Fig. 4.
If the missile has rate gyroscope for measurement of missile
pitch/yaw angular velocity and a gimbal angle transducer, a
better way is to integrate missile pitch/yaw angular velocity and
to add it with the gimbal angle and measured tracking error and
then differentiate it to obtain LOS rate. Here, the output of the
missile body rate gyro is integrated and summed together with
the seeker gimbal angle and measured tracking error to develop
a LOS measurement [11]. Mathematically, this method can be
expressed as follows and is shown in Fig 5.
𝜆𝑚 = 𝜖𝑚 + 𝜃ℎ + ∫ 𝜃̇𝑚 𝑑𝑡 (10)
These two approaches are mathematically the same, but their
performance depends on the type of sensors used.
VI. LOS RATE RECONSTRUCTION
Another approach is to obtain LOS rate by differentiating
tracking error and adding it to missile pitch/yaw rate and gimbal
rate.
Figure 4: LOS estimation scheme using rate using gyroscope which measures
dish rate
This approach is stated mathematically (in Laplace domain) as
follows.
𝑠
𝜆̇𝑚 (𝑠) = 𝜖 + 𝜃̇ℎ (𝑠) + 𝜃̇𝑚 (𝑠) (11)
𝜏𝑠 + 1 𝑚
Where 𝑠 is the Laplace operator and 𝜏 is the lead network time
constant. Additionally low pass filer can be included to filter out
tracking error measurement noise. This method is illustrated in
Fig. 6. Here it is necessary to use low pass filter because tracking
error differentiation may lead to increased final miss distance.
VII. RADOME (IRDOME) REFRACTION ERROR
When the target echo passes through the missile radome, the
random dielectric constant and its conical shape could deviate
its path from the straight line [9]. As this happens, the seeker will
track a false target with a tracking error 𝜖′ as shown in Fig. 1.
The radome error arises because RF (IR) energy passing through
the radome seeker antenna is refracted by the dome material
[10]. This refraction error varies over the radome surface and
generally depends on gimbal angle. Therefore, it is important to
keep the missile pointed towards the target. Since refraction
error is not the same over all radome surface, it seems to be
nonlinear function of gimbal angle.
Figure 5: LOS rate estimation using gyroscope which measures missile pitch
or yaw rate
Figure 6: LOS rate reconstruction by differentiating tracking error
Therefore, over some small range of gimbal angle a slope
coefficient 𝑅 can be defined as
𝜕𝜖′
𝑅= (12)
𝜕𝜃ℎ
Now, referring to Fig. 1 it follows that the measured tracking
error is given by:
𝜖𝑚 = 𝜆 + 𝜖 ′ − 𝜃ℎ − 𝜃𝑚 (13)
Differentiating (13) and using chain rule with (12) it follows that
𝜖̇𝑚 = 𝜆̇ + 𝑅𝜃̇ℎ − 𝜃̇ℎ − 𝜃̇𝑚 (14)
Furthermore, the measured LOS, with radome refraction error,
is given by:
𝜆𝑚 = 𝜆 + 𝜖′ (15)
Differentiating (15) with respect to time and using chain rule
with (12), it follows that:
𝜆̇𝑚 = (1 + 𝑅)𝜆̇ − 𝑅𝜃̇𝑚 (16)
Now it follows that for small 𝑅, even with radome refraction
error, it is possible to obtain good LOS rate measurement if the
missile pitch and yaw are stabilized. Eq. (14) gives the
mathematical model of missile seeker with radome error which
is shown in Fig. 7. Furthermore, previous equation states that
LOS rate estimation is corrupted by the missile pitching or
yawing motion when missile cannot be stabilized in the presence
of radome refraction error. When the 𝑅 is zero, that is when the
missile is pointed at the target, the contributions from body
angular rate cancel producing no effect on measured tracking
error. Now it has become evident that the seeker must point to
the target as close as possible to minimize radome slope(𝑅). This
is why most seekers have a stabilization loop to isolate body
rotations and track loop to maintain the seeker axis along the
missile-target direction [9]. Let us suppose that the missile
autopilot is able to achieve desired commanding acceleration,
then complete simulation block diagram for missile guidance
with seeker parasitic loop can be constructed as shown in Fig. 8.
As is shown in the preceding paper [2] missile angular rates can
be decreased by increasing autopilot gains. Other than that,
stabilizing the missile seeker gimbal angle is the only way to
reduce parasitic loop effects on the final miss distance.
Figure 7: Missile seeker model with parasitic effects
Figure 8: Missile guidance scheme with parasitic effects
VIII. 6-DOF SIMULATION
Using a developed 6-DOF missile model and the autopilot as
shown in [2] and using missile seeker model presented in this
paper it is now possible to develop full 6-DOF missile guidance
simulator based only on measurement of tracking error. It is
assumed that missile velocity and angular body rates can be
calculated from the governing missile equations. In practice
they are measured. Since this paper aims to develop IR seeker,
it will be aimed to avoid implementation of TPN since it
requires information about target velocity which cannot be
measured by IR seeker. In the developed simulator
measurement tracking error is obtained using (7). Where the
real LOS angle is obtained using geometrical relationship
between missile and the target. Let us suppose that 𝑅𝑇𝑀𝑥 , 𝑅𝑇𝑀𝑧
and 𝑅𝑇𝑀𝑧 are distances of the missile from the target by 𝑥, 𝑦
and 𝑧 axis respectively. Then true LOS values for vertical(𝑥𝑧)
and horizontal(𝑥𝑦) plane are respectively given by:
𝑅𝑇𝑀𝑧
𝜆𝑥𝑧 = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑔( ) (17)
𝑅𝑇𝑀𝑥
𝑅𝑇𝑀𝑦
𝜆𝑥𝑦 = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑔( ) (18)
𝑅𝑇𝑀𝑥
These LOS values, together with gimbal angles, can be used to
simulate tracking error. Simulator includes subsystem that
implements developed seeker with its gimbal motor and
controller. Seeker subsystem outputs LOS rates for both planes
which are multiplied by missile velocity and a constant. This
produces commanding accelerations for both planes which are
fed into the autopilot subsystem. Following few images show
simulation results. Target is located at the initial distance of
4000 meters from the launch point and at the height of 100
meters. The target is moving sideways at the velocity of
10 𝑚/𝑠 and is closing in with the velocity 5 𝑚/𝑠. Fig. 9 shows
missile and the target paths. Inertial frame 𝑧 axis is pointing
towards center of the earth, but it was inverted for better
plotting. Fig. 10 shows measured seeker tracking errors. As
mentioned earlier, one of the most important tasks of the missile
seeker is to keep the missile pointed at the target at all times.
This means that the seeker has too nullify measured tracking
error. In this figure, it is obvious that there is measurement noise
acting on the sensor. Since the noise is of Gaussian nature it
cannot be nullified. But as is seen in Fig. 9 there is no impact
on the performance since the missile meets the target. Since the
initial location of the target in vertical plane of the target is
above the missile, the seeker must correct the gimbal angle to
nullify the tracking error in vertical plane. At the beginning of
the guidance phase, missile autopilot forces the missile to pitch
upwards which causes oscillations in pitch angle. Therefore,
there will be oscillating tracking error. After some short time Figure 10:Measured tracking errors for vertical and horizontal plane
missile will stop oscillating and the measured tracking error will
nullify. For tracking error in horizontal plane it is always around
zero, except for the noise input. This is due to the fact that the
initial displacement along 𝑦 axis is zero and there is no heading
error to nullify. Fig. 11 shows estimated LOS rates and real
values of LOS rates in vertical and horizontal plane. Here it can
be seen that the missile seeker gives very good estimation of
real LOS rate. It should be noted that the seeker can give good
LOS rate estimate only when the missile stops oscillating in
pitch or yaw channel hence the time gap between real and
estimated LOS value. It should also be noted that estimated
LOS rate value heavily depends on the cutoff frequency of the
guidance filter. For low cutoff frequencies the estimated value
will reach the true value faster but measurement noise will
propagate in stronger manner. For higher cutoff frequencies
there will be less noise in the estimated value but response time
will be larger. It is important to find the compromise in this case
based on the nature of the sensor and guidance performance
requirements. It can also be seen that proportional navigation Figure 11: Estimated LOS rates in vertical annd horizontal plane of motion
aims to nullify LOS rates as they tend zero as the missile
approaches the target.

Figure 12: Gimbal angles

Figure 9: Missile and target paths during engagement
Finally, Fig. 12 shows gimbal angles. Here gimbal angles have
to adjust for missile pitch in order to point the sensor device to
the target. Since the aim of the proportional navigation is to
nullify LOS rates, then the gimbal angles have to be exactly the
negative pitch and yaw angles, except for initial conditions and
if the tracking error is zero. Also, here we see that at initial
guidance phase the vertical gimbal adjusts for the missile pitch
oscillations.
IX. CONCLUSION
This article simulation results show that the missile seeker with
two controlled gimbal axis is able to keep seeker tracking
device pointing at the target and is able to estimate LOS angular
rate. This is done despite the presence of seeker sensor
measurement noise and the presence of pitch and yaw missile
oscillations. Furthermore, it was shown, that proportional
navigation (PN) guidance law, using obtained estimates, is able
to intercept a target. It was also shown that, due to the lack of
active homing device, rough estimation of closing velocity
gives the same performance as if closing velocity was correctly
measured. This shows that LOS angular rate carries most
information needed to generate commanding accelerations
which guarantee target interception.
REFERENCES
[1] Das Ranajit, Srisha Ch. V, Choudhary Kumar, “Homing Guidance Desing
Challenges for Tactical Missiles”, IFAC PapersOnLine, 2018
[2] M. Hodžić, N. Prljača, “Simulation of Short Range Missile Guidance
Using Proportional Navigation“, 20th International Symposium
INFOTEH-JAHORINA, 17-19 March 2021
[3] Paul Zarchan, “Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance”, American
Institutte of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., MIT Lincoln Laboratory,
2012
[4] Rafael Yanushevsky, “Modern missile guidance”, CRC Press, 2019
[5] U.S. Shukla, P.R. Mahapatra, “The Proportional Navigatiom Dilemma-
Pure or True?”, IEEE Transaction on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,
Vol. 26, No. 2, 1990
[6] N.A. Shneydor, “Missile Guidance and Pursuit, Kinematics, Dynamics
and Control”, Elsevier Science, Israel Institute of Technology, 1998.
[7] Neil F. Palumbo, Ross A. Blauwkamp, Justin M. Lloyd, “Basic Principles
of Homing Guidance”, Johns Hopkins Apl Technical Digest, Vol. 29,
No. 1, pp. 25-41, 2010
[8] George Sirious, “Missile Guidance and Control Systems”, Springer-
Verlag, New York, 2004
[9] Qi Zaikang, Lin Defu, “Design of Guidance and Control Systems for
Tactical Missile”, CRC Press, 2020
[10] Ching-Fang Lin, “Modern Navigation, Guidance and Control
Processing”, Prentice Hall, 1991.