Simulation study demonstrates coordinated impact speed and two-phase inter-vehicle separation in multi-interceptor systems, indicating improved command smoothness without sacrificing accuracy.
Safe cooperative interception must coordinate arrival, terminal geometry, closing speed, and internal spacing at the same time. This study formulates a spatial cooperative guidance scheme that couples range synchronization, terminal relative-speed regulation, adaptive transverse convergence, and active separation among interceptors. Along the line of sight (LOS), finite-time agreement of range-related states is superposed with a shared closing-speed servo, thereby separating the difference dynamics inside the multi-vehicle system from the mean radial-speed mode. In the two angular channels, the constant reaching gain is replaced with a time-, range-, and error-dependent gain that moderates the initial command peak while preserving terminal LOS-angle convergence. Collision risk is handled in two phases. During the early trajectory-reshaping phase, a smoothed neighbor-repulsion command is projected onto the transverse plane so that the radial speed loop is not perturbed. After the LOS-angle errors enter the assigned band, separated terminal approach directions are used to avoid late trajectory aggregation. Numerical tests show that the scheme removes early overload saturation and increases the minimum spacing while keeping the terminal constraints. In three deterministic cases, the terminal angle errors are on the order of 10−6, the relative impact-speed errors are on the order of 10−3, and the miss distances are approximately 0.8m. Two 200-run Monte Carlo tests with launch-condition perturbations and measurement noise give terminal angle errors on the order of 10−3, relative impact-speed errors around 0.5m/s, and miss distances concentrated near 0.5m. These results indicate that the proposed design improves command smoothness and spacing performance without sacrificing cooperative terminal accuracy under the tested engagement conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: