eess.SYMar 24, 2026

Engagement-Zone-Aware Input-Constrained Guidance for Safe Target Interception in Contested Environments

Authors: Praveen Kumar Ranjan, Abhinav Sinha, Yongcan Cao

Organizations: Unmanned Systems Lab, Department of Electrical Engineering, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78249 · Guidance, Autonomy, Learning, and Control for Intelligent Systems (GALACxIS) Lab, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

We address target interception in contested environments in the presence of multiple defenders whose interception capability is limited by finite ranges. Conventional methods typically impose conservative stand-off constraints based on maximum engagement distance and neglect the interceptors' actuator limitations. Instead, we formulate safety constraints using defender-induced engagement zones. To account for actuator limits, the vehicle model is augmented with input saturation dynamics. A time-varying safe-set tightening parameter is introduced to compensate for transient constraint violations induced by actuator dynamics. To ensure scalable safety enforcement in multi-defender scenarios, a smooth aggregate safety function is constructed using a log-sum-exp operator combining individual threat measures associated with each defender's capability. A smooth switching guidance strategy is then developed to coordinate interception and safety objectives. The attacker pursues the target when sufficiently distant from threat boundaries and progressively activates evasive motion as the EZ boundaries are approached. The resulting controller relies only on relative measurements and does not require knowledge of defender control inputs, thus facilitating a fully distributed and scalable implementation. Rigorous analysis provides sufficient conditions guaranteeing target interception, practical safety with respect to all defender engagement zones, and satisfaction of actuator bounds. An input-constrained guidance law based on conservative stand-off distance is also developed to quantify the conservatism of maximum-range-based safety formulations. Simulations with stationary and maneuvering defenders demonstrate that the proposed formulation yields shorter interception paths and reduced interception time compared with conventional methods while maintaining safety throughout the engagement.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Attacker-Target-Defender engagement geometry.
Figure 2: Illustration of EZ for single defender ( [xD,yD]⊤=[0  0]⊤[x_{D},y_{D}]^{\top}=[0\;0]^{\top} with RD=1R_{D}=1 m and cD=0.25c_{D}=0.25 m).
Figure 3: Engagement boundary relative to the maximum range.
Figure 4: Variation of the safety function boundary (h=0)(h=0) for different choices of the parameter β\beta .
Figure 5: Variation of the safety function boundary with tightening parameter Δ\Delta .
RegionModeCondition on α\alphaGuidance LawInterpretation
IPure target interceptionα=0\alpha=0aAd=aATa_{A}^{d}=a_{A}^{T}The attacker is sufficiently far from all engagement zones; the guidance law focuses entirely on target interception.
IIPure EZ avoidanceα=1\alpha=1aAd=aAba_{A}^{d}=a_{A}^{b}The attacker is near an engagement boundary; the safety component is fully activated to prevent entry into the engagement zone.
IIIBlended mode0<α<10<\alpha<1aAd=(1−α)aAT+αaAba_{A}^{d}=(1-\alpha)a_{A}^{T}+\alpha a_{A}^{b}Both interception and safety terms contribute to the commanded acceleration. This region represents the transition between interception and safety dominance, where α\alpha varies continuously due to its locally Lipschitz and nonincreasing properties.
Table 1: Operating regions of the proposed guidance law.
Figure 6: Target interception by avoiding two stationary defenders.
Figure 7: Comparison of attacker performance with three moving defenders.
Figure 8: Comparison of attacker performance with six moving defenders.
Figure 9: Comparison of the tightening parameter variation.
Simulation ScenarioProposed MethodConservative safety constraintNoramlized Savings ( %\% )
Static defenders ( n=2n=2 )15.52 s15.97 s2.82
Moving defenders ( n=3n=3 )18.91 s22.08 s14.36
Moving defenders ( n=6n=6 )21.42 s26.82 s20.13
Table 2: Comparison of target interception time.
More in this topic

Distributed Control

See all 12 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList

  1. Bounded-Input True Proportional Navigation for Impact-Time Control

    May 13, 2026Lohitvel Gopikannan, Shashi Ranjan Kumar, Abhinav SinhaFeedback ControlSliding Mode Control

    Intelligent Systems & Control (ISaC) Lab, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India · Guidance, Autonomy, Learning, and Control for Intelligent Systems (GALACxIS) Lab, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA

  2. Terminal Time and Angle-Constrained Nonlinear Intercept Guidance

    Jun 1, 2026Shivam Bajpai, Abhinav SinhaSliding Mode Control

    Guidance, Autonomy, Learning, and Control for Intelligent Systems (GALACxIS) Lab, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA

  3. Multi-Agent Deferred-Decision Trajectory Optimization with Anytime-Valid Target Retention for Moving Candidates

    Oct 12, 2026Farbod Siahkali, Mengxue Hou, Vijay GuptaMulti-Agent PlanningTrajectory Optimization

    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA · Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA