- 0 -

Table of Contents Page No.

1.0 Background
1.1 FIM-92 Stinger Missile 1
1.2 FIM-92 Stinger Missile Specifications 2
1.3 Maximum Speed 3
1.4 Maximum Range 3
1.5 Service Ceiling 3
2.0 Missile Guidance Navigation
2.1 Assumptions of the Model 3
2.2 Aiming the Missile 4-5
2.3 MATLAB Code 5-7
2.4 Danger Zones 8
3.0 Enemy Attack 9
3.1 Fighter Aircraft 9-11
3.2 Helicopter Gunships 11-12
3.3 Fighter Bombers 12-13
4.0 An Analysis of Proportional Navigation 13-15
5.0 Information Reliability 16
6.0 Conclusion 16-17
6.1 Critical Appraisal and Further Investigation 17-18
7.0 Appendix 19
8.0 References 20
9.0 Bibliography 21




- 1 -


1.0 Background
1.1 FIM-92 Stinger Missile
The FIM-92 Stinger Missile is a type of MANPADS (Man-portable Air-defence system) used to
protect military ground forces from low-altitude enemy attack. It is currently manufactured by
Raytheon Missile Systems in the USA. The Stinger missile was first introduced in March 1972 when
the Redeye II missile was renamed as the FIM-92A Stinger. However, development of the then
named Redeye II missile began 5 years prior to this as an improvement on the FIM-43 Redeye
Missile. The Redeye was deemed by the Materiel Requirements Review Committee in 1960 to be
not fast enough, could not maneuver (sic) soon enough, and could not discriminate well enough to
successfully engage its targets.
The Low Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Gunner's Handbook (2000) states that the Stinger uses
heat seeking technology to engage on the hottest part of the target (the engine) and proportional
navigation algorithms to guide the missile to a predicted intercept point. It also has an Identification
Friend or Foe (IFF) system ,an encoded radio system to avoid friendly fire. The missile can be fired
from the gunners shoulder which will be looked at in the model. It can also be fired from vehicles
such as the AN/TWQ-1 Avenger or M6 Linebacker. A small ejection motor launches the missile to a
safe distance approximately 9 metres away from the operator before the two-stage solid-fuel
sustainer accelerates the Stinger to its maximum speed.
There are 4 variants of the Stinger which have been developed in subsequent years after the
FIM-92A was introduced. Production of a fifth, the Stinger-RMP Block II ,began but was later
cancelled due to development being majorly behind schedule. The Stinger is made up of a seeker
head, guidance section, warhead, flight motor and launch motor shown in figure 1.







F
i
Figure 1- G Stinger Design (How Stuff Works)


The different variants carry all of
the same components in their designs
but physically appear slightly altered. As
with the design of the Stinger, the
specifications i.e. maximum speed,
service ceiling, maximum range etc.;
slightly alter with the different versions.
Therefore, the general specifications for
the FIM-92 Stinger missile will be used in
the model.

- 2 -

1.2 FIM-92 Stinger Missile Specifications
The specifications alter across different sources as shown in chart 1. The information
available about the Stinger missile is limited due to classified data and therefore the data which
appears to be most accurate and agrees with other sources will be used within the model.

1
Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, (2005),
2
HowStuffWorks, (1998),
3
About.com US Military, (2012),

4
Richardcyoung.com, (2012)
The first and fourth sources are the most consistent with each other therefore these
specifications will be used in the model.
Length 1.52 m (5 ft)
Finspan 9.1 cm (3.6 in)
Diameter 7 cm (2.75 in)
Weight 10.1 kg (22.3 lb); complete system: 15.7 kg (34.7 lb)
Speed Mach 2.2+
Ceiling 3800 m (26200 ft)
Range 4800m (15700ft) RMP Block II: 8000 m (26000 ft)
Propulsion Atlantic Research MK 27 dual-thrust (boost/sustain) solid-fuelled rocket motor
Warhead 3 kg (6.6 lb) blast-fragmentation
Flight time 17 2 seconds

Source Maximum Speed Service Ceiling Maximum Range
1 Mach 2.2+ 3800m (26200 ft) 4800 m (15700 ft)
RMP Block II: 8000 m (26000
ft)
2 1,500 mph (2,400 kph,
Mach 2)
Approximately 11,000 feet
(3 km)
Approximately 5 miles (8 km)
3 Supersonic in flight 10,000 feet (3.046
kilometers)
1 to 8 kilometres
4 Mach 2.2 (FIM-92A) 3,500 m (FIM-
92B/C) 3,800 m
(FIM-92A) greater than 4,000
m
(FIM-92B/C) 4,800 m
Chart 2 - Full Stinger Specification from Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, (2005)]

Chart 1 Comparison of information from different sources.
- 3 -

Not all of the given information is necessary for this model and is given for informational
purposes only. The maximum speed, service ceiling and range are the main three measurements
used.
1.3 Maximum Speed
The maximum speed of the Stinger is Mach 2.2 or equivalently 748.64 ms
-1
(2 d.p.). However,
the Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles (2002) states that the Stinger has shown a top-
speed at motor burnout can be as high as Mach 2.6 for certain trajactories. (sic) This may only be
possible when the Stinger is travelling vertically towards the ground and the force of gravity is
increasing its speed. This is unlikely to happen unless the Stinger was fired from an aircraft or was
chasing a target which was travelling towards the ground. Consequently, a high speed of Mach 2.6
will be ignored as such trajectories will not be modelled.
1.4 Maximum Range
The maximum range is given as 15700 ft. (4800 m) or (or 26000 ft. for the cancelled Stinger-
RMP Block II). The value of the maximum range is questionable since calculating it using the flight
time average and the Stingers maximum speed gives a different result.
Mean flight time = 17 seconds Maximum Speed = 748.64 ms
-1



12.7 km is almost triple the stated value of 4.8 km leading to a conclusion that the stated range is
an estimate based on a dynamic pursuit, or is limited not by the rocket but by another factor.
1.5 Service Ceiling
The service ceiling for the Stinger is given as 3800m or 26200 ft which is highly debatable since
applying the same argument as given in section 1.3 would show that the Stinger is capable of
reaching three times this altitude if fired vertically. An explanation for a this discrepancy could be
due to the Infrared seeker on the missile. Certain gases in the atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide
and water vapour (sic), absorb energy in the IR frequency spectrum. Since the amount of water
vapour in the atmosphere alters as the altitude increases, this suggests that the IR seeker aboard the
Stinger would have problems detecting a target and so, the target must be within this service ceiling
to be able to lock onto it. This leads to the idea that if the Stinger can lock onto the target, it would
be able to chase it outside of the maximum range.

2.0 Missile Guidance Navigation
2.1 Assumptions of the Model
Missile preparation time is 5 seconds.
Time until Stinger explodes is taken as 19 seconds.
Minimum firing angle is taken as 10
0
.
- 4 -

No hangfires or misfires.
Toleration taken as 20 m i.e. once Stinger is 20 m from target, this is classed as a hit.
2.2 Aiming the Missile
The missile is initially aimed and fired at the
target, with a speed, bearing and elevation, worked out
using spherical polar coordinates.
Taking R as the position vector of the target relative to
the missile, this generates

(

||
)

)
Note: military literature uses the elevation angle, the angle between the missile and the
horizontal ground, whereas conventional polar coordinates measure from the vertical. Equally
military specifications are given in degrees when computations are carried out in radians. The code
is written to follow mathematical convention. The assumption made is that it is easier to program by
convention then change the specification for a user who is likely to be more familiar with degrees
The navigation of the missile is based on the
missile attempting to align with the targets path. This
is achieved by generating acceleration proportional to
the closing speed of the missile S
R
normal to the
missiles velocity but parallel to the change in
rotational line of sight

as a vector equation:

where

So is a vector with the magnitude of

normal to

and also the closing velocity

.
The missile navigation equation may be modified so that the missile leads the target, aiming
at a predicted collision point, rather than at the current position of a moving target, this is achieved
by simply multiplying the calculated acceleration by a constant N.
Figure 2
Figure 3
- 5 -

When running the code, no attempt is made to find analytical solutions. For simplicity the
system linearizes position and velocity functions according to a time interval width, h:
() ( ) ()
() ( ) ()
These iterations are continued until the distance between the missile and the target is below
a specified tolerance. This is perhaps a more realistic interpretation of the on-board calculations.
2.3 MATLAB Code
A sample code is shown below. This code models the target attempting to evade the Stinger,
but indicates the point in the code at which alternative flight paths can be examined. (see appendix)
function FlightTime = Yossarian(CONST)

%%% Yossarian.m

%%%Last Modified 22/03/2012
i = 1;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% This area contains variables to change %%%%%%%%%

N = CONST ; %%%%% Constant of Proportional Navigation
PrepT = 5 ; %%% Time from spotting to launch
BOOMt = 19; % tMax flight time until detonation
maxRange = 4800;
Ceiling = 3800;
xT(i) = 10000 ; yT(i) = 12000 ;zT(i) = 2000; %Target Position
SpotDist = 8000;
SpeedM = 10 %%% Ejection motor Speed
InThetaT = 4 * pi/3; %%% Initial bearing and inclination of target
InPhiT = pi/2; %%% and elevation of target
SpeedT = 400 %%% Targets cruising speed
MINangle = 10; %%% Minimum firing angle specified in degrees

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% No more things to change %%%%%%%%%%%%%

hold on

MinRad = pi/2 - MINangle*pi/180; % Conv MINangle to Rad & elevation to Phi

VT = SpeedT*
[sin(InPhiT)*cos(InThetaT);sin(InPhiT)*sin(InThetaT);cos(InPhiT)] ;
%%%% Velocity vector of target

Zaxis = [0 ; 0; 1];
Xaxis = [ 1; 0 ;0];

h = 0.05; %%% Stepsize
t(1) = 0; %%%% time

xM(1) = 0 ;yM(1)= 0 ;zM(1) = 0; %%% Origin WRT Stinger
- 6 -


R = [xT(i) - xM(i); yT(i) - yM(i); zT(i) - zM(i)];
PhiM = abs(acos(dot(R,Zaxis)/norm(R)));

dist = norm(R)

while t(i) - PrepT < 0 || dist > maxRange || zT(i) > Ceiling

%%% dont fire till target in range
i = i + 1;

%%%%%%%%% Other Flightpaths are plugged into this section %%%%%%%%

xT(i) = xT(i-1) + h*VT(1); %%% VT is a vector , 1, 2 , 3 corres
yT(i) = yT(i-1) + h*VT(2); to i,j,k, notations
zT(i) = zT(i-1) + h*VT(3); %%% not to VT on loop 1 2 3

t(i) = t(i-1) + h ;

%%%%%%%%%%FlightPath Plugin Ends%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

xM(i) = 0 ;yM(i)= 0 ;zM(i) = 0;

VM = 0;

R = [xT(i) - xM(i); yT(i) - yM(i); zT(i) - zM(i)];
PhiM = abs(acos(dot(R,Zaxis)/norm(R)));
dist = norm(R)
end
plot3(xT,yT,zT ,'r')

LaunchT = t(i); %%%% Time of Firing

R = [xT(i) - xM(i); yT(i) - yM(i); zT(i) - zM(i)];

ThetaM = abs(acos(dot(R,Xaxis)/norm(R))); %%% Bearing and Elevation

PhiM = abs(acos(dot(R,Zaxis)/norm(R))); Missile is launched at;

Bearing = [sin(PhiM)* cos(ThetaM); sin(PhiM) * sin(ThetaM); cos(PhiM)];

VM = SpeedM * Bearing;

tol = 20; %%% given the speed of the missile, this is the short distance
it cannot fly through in one iteration.

dist(i) = norm(R)% as soon as gets within a radius, target is hit

plot3(xT,yT,zT ,'r')

plot3(xM,yM,zM, 'b')

while dist(i) > tol && t(i) < BOOMt + LaunchT

i = i+1;

vR = VT - VM;

- 7 -

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Differernt Flight Paths Plugged in HERE %%%%%%%%%%%

if dist(i-1) > SpotDist
%%% ie when target does not feel in danger from missile
else
NormalT = cross(VM,R); %%%% Target calculates a vector normal to
the closing displacement and the velocity of the target

AccnT = NormalT/norm(NormalT);
AccnT(3)= abs(AccnT(3)); %% So plane will climb out of danger
SpeedT = SpeedT + 10*h; %%% Accelerate to run away
VT = SpeedT*(VT + AccnT*h*150)/norm((VT + AccnT*h*150)); %%%

xT(i) = xT(i-1) + h*VT(1);
yT(i) = yT(i-1) + h*VT(2);
zT(i) = zT(i-1) + h*VT(3);

xM(i) = xM(i-1) + h*VM(1);
yM(i) = yM(i-1) + h*VM(2);
zM(i) = zM(i-1) + h*VM(3);

%%%%%%%%%% End of Different Flightpath Plug in Code %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

R = [ xT(i) - xM(i); yT(i) - yM(i); zT(i) - zM(i)];

%%%% Formulas

OMEG = cross(vR,R)/dot(R,R); % Rotation Vector

AccnM = N * cross(vR , OMEG); %% Accn to change target.

if t - LaunchT < 2;
Booster = 330; %%% This is the initial accelerator rocket
%%%% accelerates in the direction of rocket travel.
else
Booster = 0;
end
SpeedM = SpeedM + h*Booster

VM = SpeedM*(VM - h* AccnM)/norm(VM - h* AccnM);

%%%% Velocity must be normalised then multiplied by speed
dist(i) = norm (R) ;


DISTANCE = dist(i)

t(i) = t(i-1)+h;

Time = t(i)
end
FlightTime = Time - LaunchT; %%% Time Missile is in the air.

plot3(xM,yM,zM, 'b') %%% 3D Plots

plot3(xT,yT,zT ,'r')
end

- 8 -


2.4 Danger Zones












Figure 4 is a visual representation of the danger zones dependent on the speed of the
aircraft and the initial position of the aircraft (flying directly away), as it tries to escape. The red area
is where the Stinger missile always hits its target (according to the MATLAB simulation). The amber
area is where the Stinger missile does hit the target but within 15-19 seconds. Given the Stinger
could explode during this time; the area is classed as a maybe area. It is not an area that an enemy
would feel comfortable in but the operator may be reluctant to fire the Stinger missile due to fear of
missing and wasting it. The green area is where the Stinger does not hit the target. This would be
classed as the safe zone so it is unlikely the missile would be launched.
Although these graphs are simplistic, they are designed to demonstrate the possible areas
maths can be used to assist in the decision making of a pilot and Stinger operator. They show that
the speed of the aircraft is a very important aspect of defence and attack. Although the Stinger
missile is faster than all the various speeds investigated, the important point to note is that due to
the fact the Stinger destructs between 15 and 19 seconds, all the aircraft has to do is survive for that
length of time. It therefore stands to reason that the further away the aircraft begins this survival
mission the greater chance of success it has and these graphs demonstrate this. The focal point of
the report is from the point of view of the Stinger, so these graphs could be very beneficial if the
operators had the speed of the aircraft they are trying to hit. They could prevent hopeless causes
being pursued.

450 ms
-1
500 ms
-1
550 ms
-1
600 ms
-1
400 ms
-1
Range (metres)

A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
e
t
r
e
s
)

Figure 4 Danger Zones
- 9 -


3.0 Enemy attack
The aim of the model is to assess the Stingers capabilities against various incoming enemy
attacks. This will be done by looking at which scenario the Stinger is successful in taking out the
target, how fast the missile can accomplish this and how well the Stinger is able to reach and chase a
target. In all of the MATLAB output; the targets flight path will be shown as a red line and the
Stingers flight path as a blue line. There are a range of types of enemy attacks to model which will
test the Stingers effectiveness in succeeding.
3.1 Fighter Aircraft
Fighter aircrafts are designed for air-to-air
combat with other aircraft. They are known for their
speed and manoeuvrability. An example of such
fighter aircraft is the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.
Lockheed Martin (n.d.) states that the Raptor can fly
at around Mach 2 with afterburners and The Official
Website of the U.S. Air Force (n.d.) states a service
ceiling of 15 kilometres making an escape from a
Stinger missile possible. It also explains that The combination of stealth, integrated avionics and
supercruise drastically shrinks surface-to-air missile engagement envelopes and minimizes enemy
capabilities to track and engage the F-22. This also decreases the chance of a Stinger attacking the
aircraft.
Figure 6 is a MATLAB plot that shows the path of the F-22 RAPTOR whilst a Stinger missile is
launched at it using a varying constant of proportional navigation (from 1-10). The figure
demonstrates that when the fighter, which is capable of Mach 2, only uses its speed to try and avoid
the Stinger, it will fail to escape.
Figure 5 - Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor (FAS)
-500
0 500
1000 1500
2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Range (metres)
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
e
t
r
e
s
)

Figure 6
- 10 -





















Figure 9 is the MATLAB output that was produced when the F-22 Raptor, was modelled
carrying out a fly away path. The Raptor realises that there is a Stinger missile in the area and it
attempts to turn and get away using its speed. As the fighter has a possible speed of Mach 2 the pilot
decides this is a sensible choice of action. Figure 9 shows that under this simulation the Stinger fails
to hit its target on all 10 simulations. Figures 8 and 9 demonstrate the difference the speed of the
fighter jet makes on its survival prospects. In figure 9 the Raptor is capable of Mach 2 and can escape
as long as it spots the Stinger in time. In figure 8 however, the Stinger will hit the fighter aircraft
every time as it is only travelling at a speed of Mach 1.
Figure 10 demonstrates this further as it shows the various times of success compared to the
constant of proportional navigation. This result means that fighter pilots and Stinger operators must
be able to calculate how far away the opposition is (i.e. the plane from the Stinger and vice versa),
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
x
y

Figure 9 U turn at Mach 2
x
y

Figure 8 U turn at Mach 1
Figure 7 shows the time each of
the simulations take to hit the target in
relation to the constant of
proportional navigation that is used.
This graph shows that for this
particular scenario in which the fighter
jet is flying at Mach 2 the optimal
proportional navigation constant is 2.
This; alongside the results from the
other simulations suggest that there is
not one optimal choice of constant for
all scenarios.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4.88
4.9
4.92
4.94
4.96
4.98
5
5.02
5.04
5.06
Proportional Navigation Constant
T
i
m
e

u
n
t
i
l

d
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
a
r
g
e
t

(
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)

Figure 7
- 11 -

and also know the various speeds of opposition
aircraft. These findings further support the
need for mathematical modelling data within a
combat situation, given the unit cost of the
missile ($38,000) and the risk of alerting the
aircraft to the Stinger team.
It is unlikely the operator of the Stinger
could calculate all of this in a split second so
this information must be supplied prior to the
operator using the missile,
3.2 Helicopter Gunships
Used to provide support for troops on the ground, an
example of an attack helicopter is the Bell AH-1G Huey Cobra.
The Military Factory (2003) states the service ceiling to be
approximately 3.7 kilometres with a maximum speed of 141 mph
(63ms
-1
). These are well within the missile specifications, so it is
unnecessary to investigate the same scenarios as the fighter.
The LAAD Gunners Handbook (2000) states that the
Stinger missile launched from a MANPADS cannot fire at
targets below a 10 degree elevation from the ground, to
account for the flight after launch but before the rocket fires.










Clearly, once the Stinger has locked on to the target, the missile is capable of chasing a target
into this region.
Figure 11 - Bell AH-1G Huey Cobra
(Helicopter Histories)


This 10 degree limit creates a
region where the helicopter is safe.
So this scenario investigates the
capabilities of a helicopter in this
region.
This simulation (Figure 12)
shows a Cobra accidentally coming
into the firing field of a Stinger missile
crew, and then attempting to flee
back to a safe region (marked in
green), after being targeted.
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
-500
0
500
1000
1500
0
100
200
300
400
y
Low Flying Helicopter
x
A
l
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
e
t
r
e
s
)

Range (metres)
Figure 12, The Low Flying Gunship.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11
11.1
11.2
11.3

Proportional Navigation Constant
T
i
m
e

u
n
t
i
l

d
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
a
r
g
e
t

(
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)

Figure 10
- 12 -

Having established the existence of a safe region, it is necessary to investigate the helicopters ability
to operate in such a region. Chart 3 shows the effective range of some of the weapons available to a
Bell Cobra, and the maximum safe height if using these weapons against a Stinger missile crew.

This demonstrates that there is a significant danger to a Stinger missile team from a
helicopter that is hugging the ground, but if the Stinger is able to lock on to the cobra then it can be
easily brought down.
It is important to recognise that by flying below the missiles field of view, the helicopter will
come into range of other anti-air measures, potentially making RPGs and small-arms fire a threat.
The effectiveness of a Stinger could be measured as an area-denial weapon, preventing incoming
helicopters from flying at a preferred altitude.
3.3 Fighter Bombers
Given that strategic bombers operate well above
the Stinger ceiling, it was decided to instead investigate
the Lockheed AC-130H. The Official Website of the U.S.
Air Force (n.d.) states that it has a cruising speed of 300
mph or around Mach 0.4 and the service ceiling is around
7.58 kilometres. However, the gunship is only likely to fly
near this altitude when it is not in the attack zone since
the armament aboard is only effective from a lower
altitude. The armament comprises of two M61 20mm
Vulcan cannons, one L60 40mm Bofors cannon and one M102 105mm howitzer as stated by the
Federation of American Scientists (2011). The Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware
(1987) indicates that an M61 Vulcan Cannon has a maximum effective slant range of 2000 metres,
therefore the target can reasonably be expected to operate below the missiles ceiling on attack.







Weapon Effective Range(m) Safe Height (

) (m)
M197 Gatling gun
Firing M53 Ammunition
1000 176
Hydra 70 Rocket Pod
8000
(Greater than Stinger)
1410
TOW Missile 3750 661
Figure 13 - Lockheed AC-130H
(Lockheed Martin)
Time
until
target is
destroye
d
(seconds
)
Figure 14 shows that the
lowest time until destruction of the
target is around 6.31 seconds with a
proportional navigation constant of
any number between 3 and 26.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
6.3
6.31
6.32
6.33
6.34
6.35
6.36
6.37
6.38
6.39
Figure 14
Proportional Navigation Constant
T
i
m
e

u
n
t
i
l

d
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
a
r
g
e
t

(
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)

Chart 3 Bell Cobra Weapons Range
- 13 -









The stinger is clearly a significant threat to the Ac 130.
4.0 An analysis of proportional navigation
So far in the analysis of various
scenarios, the proportional navigation
formulae have not shown a significantly
improved time over simple heat seeking
solutions. This section will investigate
whether benefits to this method exist.
Consider figure 16.
In this (somewhat contrived) example; of a
plane executing a barrel roll, the heat
seeking missile marked in green follows a
significantly different path to that of the missiles using proportional navigation guidance.

Proportional navigation can be considered as the missile aiming at a point which the target is
predicted to reach. Recall the formula:

All of the inputs to this formula are
the linear instantaneous values from each
iteration. Therefore the predicted
collision point would be a linear
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9
F
l
i
g
h
t

T
i
m
e
Constant
Comparison of Different Navigation Constants
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
y
The Barrel Roll
x
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
Figure 15 shows the
destruction of the fighter bomber as it
flies around its intended path. The
target had an initial altitude of 3
kilometres, a range in the x-direction
of 0.6 kilometres and a range in the y-
direction of 4 kilometres. The
MATLAB output demonstrates a
Stinger flight time as 6.06 seconds
and as can be seen in figure 15, the
gunship only managed to travel
approximately one sixth of its
intended flight path. This shows that
the AC-130H barely had a chance to
engage the ground.
A

S
t
i
n
g
e
r

i
s

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

a

f
o
r
m
i
d
a
b
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000

Figure 15.
y
x
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
e
t
r
e
s
)

Figure 16
Figure 17
- 14 -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
Constant N
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n

T
i
m
e
Comparison of Navigaiton Constants Against Straight Line Flight Paths
continuation of the current target flight path, and a higher constant would cause the missile to be
less able to cope with an aircraft following a tight curve. However, the opposite is true with
proportional navigation striking the target approximately half a second earlier.
From figure 17 it can be seen that as the constant (N) increases, the flight times and paths
tend to a limit, equally notice the minimum value at
Zarchan (1994) states that the constant of
proportional navigation is typically between 2 and 7
(with 1 being heat seeker navigation only). To
investigate this further, numerous experiments on
the previous scenarios were carried out using
random values for speed, position, bearing and
altitude. This will test whether there is an optimum
setting for all scenarios or whether a Stinger team
must first predict the targets behaviour.
When considering a flight path that follows a
straight line, all modelled flight times have reached
a minimum for constants greater than 3, with in one
case a difference being around 1.5 seconds.
Although, perhaps unclear from the graph there
was a slight increase of around 0.01 seconds for
navigational constants greater than 20.
Further models confirm that the minimum
times to collision are within the region 2 and 10
seconds, with higher constants giving a higher time
shown in figures 19, 20, 21 and 22. Alarmingly for
some fast planes the standard heat seeker model
took more than 19 seconds to reach the target, implying that the target successfully escaped.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Wide Circle Flightpath
T
i
m
e
Navigation Constant
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Constant
T
i m
e
Comparisons of Flight Times for a U Turn Evasion
Figure 20
Figure 19
Figure 18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Constant
T
i m
e
Barrel Roll Comparisons
Figure 21
- 15 -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Constant N
F
l
i
g
h
t

T
i
m
e
Proportional Navigation and the Helicopter
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
-2
0
2
x 10
4
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
x
Proportional Evasion with Proportional Persuit
y
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

As an aside when considering the
helicopter (figure 22) there was no difference in
flight times larger than a hundredth of a second
(which was the same size as the stepsize used
in the code).
Given that proportional navigation
strikes sooner and strikes targets otherwise
missed, or at the worst is negligible,
proportional navigation seems to be a
beneficial system of equations.
Proportional navigation was originally developed as a method to avoid shipping collisions,
and indeed is still used to allow Unmanned Drones to operate safely around military airstrips. With
this in mind, a slightly adapted form was used to calculate an evasion manoeuvre. Essentially the
target is turning normal to the velocity of the Stinger, while trying to climb.








A pilot could well be optimistic. This target has successfully survived for 19 seconds whilst
being pursued by a significantly faster missile. However this is only possible if the Stinger is working
without proportional navigation, the pilot can judge an evasion course as fast as the Stinger can
recalculate its trajectory (an inhuman 100 iterations per second), and can outturn the missile.





Figure 22
Fig 23
Fig 24
- 16 -

However, even taking this unrealistic worst case scenario, implementing the proportional navigation
method ensures a collision after 8.65 seconds (fig 24). This is not a viable escape tactic.
5.0 Information Reliability
The Guardian Newspaper (2005), quoting Magoudi,A (2005) Rendez-vous - the
Psychoanalysis of Franois Mitterrand, claimed that after the attack on HMS Sheffield in 1982
Falklands war, the French president provided Britain with disarm codes for the French-made Exocet
missile. Given that the Exocet is roughly contemporaneous with the Stinger missile, and that like the
Exocet, the Stinger is a widely exported weapon, it is not unreasonable to consider that the Stinger
may also have such a disarm system.

This investigation did not model such a system and truthfully no evidence is available to
support the existence of such. Instead, treat this as a succinct example of the difficulty in obtaining
up to date reliable information in the murky field of missile technology.
6.0 Conclusion
While a standard heat seeking missile proved effective, utilising proportional navigation
calculations lead to the missile hitting targets that would otherwise be missed. This also led to a
reduction in times until a successful hit. It is a military, not a mathematical judgement as to the
benefits of a half second earlier kill, but the mathematics and application of this method are not
much more complicated than that of heat seeking, so it can perhaps be assumed that the costs are
not significantly greater.
The ceiling limit severely reduces the ability of the Stinger to engage all targets apart from
helicopters, with most of the aircraft considered having a service ceiling greater than that of the
missile, and only coming into the Stingers kill region when on an attack run. When defending against
high level strategic bombing the Stinger is useless.
When considering evasion, this research suggests that speed is more of a vital factor than
manoeuvrability, given that the simulated Stinger was able to successfully neutralise a target that
could turn much sharper than any realistic aircraft, but the F-22 Raptor (travelling at Mach 2) was
able to flee along a straight line.
This implies that the Stinger Missile may be showing its age. Recall that the Stinger was
developed in the 1970s and first fired in anger during the 1982 Falklands War. These simulations
have shown that it is extremely capable against slower moving aircraft, such as fighter-bombers and
helicopters; however the Stingers Mach 2.2 is no longer an unrealistic speed for a modern fighter jet
to counter.
This investigation identified two types of safe zones, those below 10
o
of the ground, and
those distant enough for a fast aircraft to escape, however these safe zones only proved safe if the
target remained in them, with two scenarios in which the target attempts an escape leading to a
successful hit.
- 17 -

The safe zones should be considered from the point of view of the enemy pilots, although
there are regions where the missile did not hit all of the time, these regions still represented a
significant risk for a pilot to enter. As a deterrent weapon the stinger need not necessarily fire to
defend against attack.
This demonstrates the utility of the Stinger as an area denial weapon, effectively protecting a
region from attack by forcing targets to fly outside of preferred regions. Equally these safe zones can
be countered by coordinated fields of fire from other Stinger Missiles, or alternatively coordinating
with alternative anti air weaponry.
Ultimately the effectiveness of a Stinger depends on the definition of success. What
constitutes a success or a failure for a Stinger missile or conversely for the opponent? In a war of
attrition, the loss of an aircraft is significantly more costly than expenditure of a stinger. Equally a
high priority target defended with Stingers may be worth risking an attack on, especially given the
recent development of unmanned aerial vehicles that do not put friendly lives at risk. These kind of
worst case and best case evaluations must be carried out and weighted before military decisions
can be made.

6.1 Critical Appraisal and Areas for Further Investigation
Terrain
Within this report, the terrain was effectively disregarded, the model was created on the
basis that the ground was flat and there was no possible obstacles. In the real world however, war
does not discriminate by location or terrain. This report hasnt considered defending an island for
example, it hasnt considered fighting on the beaches, or fighting on the landing grounds or fields
and it hasnt considered fighting in streets or hills. If there was further time available, this report
would never surrender in the pursuit of modelling all these scenarios to discover how successful a
Stinger missile is.
The question that this report hasnt answered but must be considered in the wider context of
war, is what constitutes as a success or a failure for a Stinger missile or conversely for the opposition
attacking? What is seen as a success by one side could be seen as failure by the other side depending
on a variety of factors such as resources and how much weight is put on a particular target. For
example, if one side only had a limited supply of aircrafts they would be very reluctant to risk these if
they felt the Stinger missile could succeed, if however the loss of aircraft wasnt seen as a significant
negative, when compared to the possible positive repercussions of the mission, i.e. killing the
opposition leader then they might be more willing to attack. These kind of worst case and best
case evaluations must be carried out and weighted before military decisions can be made. This is of
particular interest in relation to the Stinger missile because the Stinger missile is often seen as a very
successful because in effect it is a deterrent.


- 18 -

Psychology
Another factor that this report hasnt considered is the human element involved. The
psychology of the pilot could have an impact on what measures they employ to avoid the Stinger.
The pilot could consider being captured as a worse scenario than dying due to the possibility of
torture. If they held the opposite view however, and the opposition had a reputation for dealing with
prisoners of war in a humane manner then they might choose to eject from their aircraft rather than
risk dying.
Equally having a stinger missile may be a significant morale boost to those on the ground.
The psychological factor is an issue for all aspects of war as it is impossible to truly know how
an individual would react to a certain scenario so assumptions must be made in respect to
mathematical modelling.
Change in final stage pursuit
A limitation of the model is the tolerance level. That is to say that if the Stinger (within the
model) got within a certain distance of the target then this would be classed as a hit. This also did
not take into account the shape and size of the aircraft.
The Stinger missile has the capacity to change targeting methods during the final stage of
pursuit, to aim at other areas of the aircraft than the exhaust heat, as the aircraft has been modelled
as a point with a tolerance, this has not been evaluated.
Heat Detector
The scope and timescale of this report has made it difficult to investigate every aspect of the
issues the Stinger might face. For example it has not looked into the effect the sun has on the ability
of the Stinger to lock onto a target, similarly it has not looked into infrared jamming of the Stinger or
the deployment of flares as a defensive mechanism of the aircraft being pursued by the Stinger. The
report did however account for certain characteristics of the heat detector component of the
Stinger. Figures from the LAAD Gunners Handbook (2000) were used in respect to this heat detector
but these were effectively rough and ready estimates used and if further investigation was carried
out with greater time and resources then these characteristics would be honed to take account of
differing climates and conditions.
Cost
It is nave to think that there is no monetary factor when assessing a weapons effectiveness.
Deployment of the stinger may not be preferable to deploying cheaper if somewhat less effective
armaments.
The Ground
One other aspect that has been difficult to model has been the Stingers relationship with the
ground. The models were designed on the basis that the Stinger must be fired above 10 degrees
from the ground. This fact was difficult to ascertain concrete evidence to support, though the LAAD
- 19 -

Gunners Handbook (2000) did provide us with one such fact so it was decided to model on this
basis. Possible issues that the Stinger might have with the ground is the difficulty in distinguishing
between the heat of the aircraft and the ground, also it was noted that the Stinger could crash into
the ground before it really got going if it was aimed at aircraft under 10 degrees. Obviously this is
dependent on where the Stinger was fired from as a Stinger fired from a helicopter would obviously
not have these issues.


- 20 -

7.0 Appendices
%%%% yossarianrepeat.m
for j = 1:1:50
%%% A simple loop to run many iterations of a code for different constants

CONST(j) = j;
%%% Investigate effect of different constants of PPN on flight time

FlightTime(j) = Yossarian(CONST(j))


end



figure

plot(CONST,FlightTime,'g-')

%%%% Plugin code for a straight line
ThetaTC(i) = ThetaTC(i-1) ; %% Straight Line



xT(i) = xT(i-1) + h*AcVel * cos(ThetaTC(i));


yT(i) = yT(i-1) + h*AcVel * sin(ThetaTC(i));

zT(i) = zT(i-1) ;

%%%% Plugin for a wide curve
ThetaTC(i) = ThetaTC(i-1) + 0.0001*pi;



xT(i) = xT(i-1) - h*AcVel * cos(ThetaTC(i));


yT(i) = yT(i-1) - h*AcVel * sin(ThetaTC(i));

zT(i) = zT(i-1) ; %%% Circle of constant height.

%%%% Plugin for The Barrel Roll
if t(i-1) < loopstart
PhiTC(i) = PhiTC(i-1);
kk=0;
else
PhiTC(i) = PhiTC(i-1) - 2*pi*h/5;
kk=1;
- 21 -


end
xT(i) = xT(i-1) + h*Tvel * sin(PhiTC(i)) * cos(ThetaTC(i))-
kk*50*h*sin(ThetaTC(i)) ;


yT(i) = yT(i-1) + h*Tvel * sin(PhiTC(i)) * sin(ThetaTC(i))+
kk*50*h*cos(ThetaTC(i));

zT(i) = zT(i-1) + h*Tvel * cos(PhiTC(i));



8.0 References
About.com US Military (2012) United States Military Weapons of War Part 1: Weapons and
Equipment of the Infantry and Special Ops (Page 3) Small Missiles and Mortars. Available at:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons/l/aainfantry3.htm (Accessed: 11 March 2012)
BBC News (2003) Profile: AC-130 Gunship. Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1602000.stm (Accessed: 7 March 2012)
Chant, C. (1987) Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware. New York: Routledge &
Kegan Paul Inc.
Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles (2005) Raytheon (General Dynamics) FIM-92
Stinger. Available at: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html (Accessed: 18
January 2012)
Federation of American Scientists (2011) AC-130H Spectre, AC-130U Spooky. Available at:
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ac130.html (Accessed: 7 March
2012)
GlobalSecurity.org (2000) FIM-43 Redeye. Available at:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/redeye.htm (Accessed: 18
January 2012)
Helicopter History Site (1997) Gunships Helicopters. Available at:
http://www.helis.com/types/gunship.php (Accessed: 2 March 2012)
Henley, J. (2005) Thatcher 'threatened to nuke Argentina', The Guardian, 22 November
[online]. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france
(Accessed: 18 March 2012)
HowStuffWorks (1998) How Stinger Missiles Work. Available at:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/Stinger3.htm (Accessed: 11 March 2012)
Lockheed Martin (n.d.) Specifications F-22 Raptor. Available at:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html (Accessed: 5
March 2012)
Military Factory (2003) Bell AH-1 Cobra / HueyCobra (Bell 209) Attack Helicopter. Available at:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=13 (Accessed: 2 March 2012)
Raytheon (2008) Missile Systems. Available at: http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rms/
(Accessed: 11 March 2012)
Richardcyoung.com (2012) FIM-92 Stinger low-altitude surface-to-air missile system.
Available at: http://www.richardcyoung.com/terrorism/fim-92-Stinger-low-altitude-surface-
to-air-missile-system/ (Accessed: 11 March 2012)
- 22 -

SinoDefence.com (2002) YingJi-91 (Kh-31P) Anti-Radiation Missile. Available at:
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/kh31.asp (Accessed: 11 March 2012)
The Official Website of the U.S. Air Force (n.d.) AC-130H/U. Available at:
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=71 (Accessed: 7 March 2012)
The Official Website of the U.S. Air Force (n.d.) F-22 Raptor. Available at:
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199 (Accessed: 5 March 2012)
United States Marine Corps. (2005) Low Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Gunner's Handbook.
USA: University Press of the Pacific.

9.0 Bibliography
Arms Control Association (1997) MANPADS at a Glance. Available at:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/manpads (Accessed: 16 January 2012)
Defense Update (2004) RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator UAV. Available at: http://defense-
update.com/products/p/predator.htm (Accessed: 30 January 2012)
Federation of American Scientists (2011) FIM-92A Stinger Weapons System: RMP & Basic.
Available at: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/Stinger.htm (Accessed: 16 January
2012)
Federation of American Scientists (2011) Cruise Missiles. Available at:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cm/ (Accessed: 18 February 2012)
Flightglobal (2012) Helicopter Profile: Eurocopter Tiger. Available at:
http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/eurocopter+tiger.html (Accessed: 30 January
2012)
GlobalSecurity.org (2000) AH-64 Apache. Available at:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-64.htm (Accessed: 30 January
2012)
GlobalSecurity.org (2000) Man Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS). Available at:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/manpads.htm (Accessed: 16 January 2012)
GlobalSecurity.org (2000) M6 Bradley Linebacker (BL). Available at:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m6.htm (Accessed: 28 January
2012)
HowStuffWorks, Inc (1998) How Stinger Missiles Work. Available at:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/Stinger3.htm (Accessed: 16 January 2012)
http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Military-Aircraft/Fighter-Attack/ (no date) (Accessed: 16
February 2012)
IBN Live (2012) BrahMos hypersonic missile to be ready in 5 years. Available at:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/brahmos-hypersonic-missile-to-be-ready-in-5-years/219591-
3.html (Accessed: 11 March 2012)
Jian-guo, G. and Jun, Z. (2010) A Unified Approach to Optimal Proportional Navigation,
Computer Science and Information Technology (ICCSIT), 2010 3rd IEEE International
Conference on, 6, pp. 74-77, IEEE [online]. Available at:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=114 (Accessed: 15 March
2012)
- 23 -

Mahapatra, P. R. (1990) The Proportional Navigation Dilemma-Pure or True?, Transactions
on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 26 (2), pp. 382-392, IEEE [online]. Available at:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=00053445 (Accessed: 15 March 2012)
Military Today (2006) M6 Linebacker Short-range air defense system. Available at:
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/m6_linebacker.htm (Accessed: 28 January 2012)
Parsch, A. (2002) Raytheon (General Dynamics) FIM-43 Redeye. Available at:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-43.html (Accessed: 3 February 2012)
Parsch, A. (2002) Raytheon (General Dynamics) FIM-92 Stinger. Available at:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html (Accessed: 18 January 2012)
Siouris, G.M. (2004) Missile Guidance and Control Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Zarchan, P. (1994) Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance. 2nd edn. Washington, DC:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.