A missile warhead damage capability evaluation method based on comprehensive analysis of gain and loss advantage distance in Euclidean space

Abstract

The present invention relates to a missile warhead damage capability evaluation method based on the comprehensive analysis of the gain-loss advantage distance in Euclidean space. The method is based on the principle of decision science and the characteristic analysis of each damage element formed by the missile warhead. The gain-loss advantage dominance score theory is used as a powerful aggregation function for each damage element to comprehensively analyze the damage element advantage relationship of each missile warhead, and the geometric relationship of the damage element in the capability space is used to analyze the superiority and inferiority relationship of each damage element, thereby solving the problem of fusion of the capability information of each damage element formed by the missile warhead, and comprehensively considering the regret value of the use of a certain damage element by the missile user in a specific environment, so as to develop an information fusion algorithm that can more comprehensively evaluate the actual damage capability of the missile warhead, and can be used for quantitative analysis and evaluation of the damage capability of various missile warheads in actual use environments. The present invention provides a method for evaluating the damage capability of the missile warhead for missile warhead designers and combat command decision-makers, and guides the damage capability of the missile warhead to the corresponding target.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to a missile warhead damage capability evaluation method based on a comprehensive analysis of the gain and loss advantage distance in Euclidean space, which can be applied to the field of missile warhead damage capability evaluation, provides a missile warhead damage capability evaluation method for missile warhead designers and combat command decision makers, and also provides an auxiliary reference for combat command decision makers in the use and selection of missile warheads. Background Art

[0002] The damage of missiles to targets is an extremely complex process. In different application scenarios, different damage elements generated by missiles have different contributions to the damage of targets. Therefore, how to accurately describe the damage power of missile warheads based on the data of various damage elements is an important issue facing scientific researchers. As the concept of systematic warfare is constantly deepening in information warfare, missile strikes on complex targets have become an important part of the information battlefield. In order to more effectively design, select and use missile warheads, it has attracted more and more attention to quickly and accurately evaluate the damage capability of warheads based on various damage metadata obtained from experiments.

[0003] In order to evaluate the power of missile warheads, Wang Rugen et al. analyzed the relevant factors affecting the damage efficiency of directional energetic kinetic rod warheads, established a comprehensive evaluation index system for damage efficiency, and proposed a gray clustering warhead damage efficiency evaluation model based on the endpoint triangle whitening weight function. The damage efficiency results obtained by the evaluation can reflect the damage capability of missile warheads to a certain extent, but the analysis process does not fully reflect the damage effect of each damage element on the target, and the data fusion process is not close to the overall power of each damage element and the missile. In addition, the calculation process fails to reflect the dissatisfaction of missile users or designers with certain damage elements in specific situations, and cannot comprehensively analyze the damage capability of missile warheads under the use environment. Summary of the invention

[0004] The technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to overcome the shortcomings and defects of the prior art and provide a method for quantitatively comprehensively analyzing and evaluating the damage capability of missile warheads. The advantage relationship of the damage elements of each missile warhead is comprehensively analyzed by using the gain-loss advantage dominance score theory as a powerful aggregation function for each damage element, and the superiority and inferiority relationship of each damage element is analyzed by using the geometric relationship of the damage element in the capability space, so as to solve the fusion problem of the capability information of each damage element formed by the missile warhead, and comprehensively consider the regret value of the use of a certain damage element by the missile user in a specific environment, so as to develop an information fusion algorithm that can more comprehensively evaluate the actual damage capability of the missile warhead, which can be used for quantitative analysis and evaluation of the damage capability of various missile warheads in actual use environments.

[0005] In order to achieve the above task, the present invention proposes a missile warhead damage capability evaluation method based on a comprehensive analysis of the gain and loss advantage distance in Euclidean space, comprising the following steps:

[0006] Based on practical experience, for the evaluation of the lethality of conventional warheads, according to the analysis of test results, it can be seen that missile warheads will produce a variety of lethal elements during the damage process, but the contribution of lethal elements is different in certain specific damage scenarios, so lethal elements with too small contributions are generally ignored. It is stipulated that the types of lethal elements involved in the evaluation are generally not more than 9, and the weight value of each lethal element is 0.01-0.3; if there is a lethal element with a weight value less than 0.01, this lethal element will be ignored, and the number of lethal elements involved in the evaluation will be reduced by 1. The nonlinear adjustment factor α of the lethal element advantage fusion represents the average nonlinearity of the fusion between the advantages of each lethal element and the total advantage of the missile warhead; when α is close to 1, it means that the linearity of the fusion between the advantages of each lethal element and the total advantage of the missile warhead is too high, and the advantage of a single lethal element has too much influence on the overall advantage of the missile warhead. Therefore, the value of α is between 0.45 and 0.8 to obtain a lethality evaluation result that conforms to reality. In specific scenarios, decision makers have limited choices and should not have too many. Because people are insensitive to numbers, when the evaluation results are very close, they will have new hesitations about the evaluation results. Therefore, the number of missile warheads involved in the comparison is generally 3 to 5. When the number of missile warheads involved in the evaluation is greater than 5, the evaluation results will be evaluated again with other warheads until the optimal missile warhead and each missile warhead with potential for use are obtained.

[0007] 1. A missile warhead damage capability assessment method based on a comprehensive analysis of the Euclidean space gain and loss advantage distance includes the following steps:

[0008] Step 1: Determine the representation method of missile warhead damage capability assessment information and define related sets and variables. Suppose the missile warhead set involved in the assessment is A = {a i |i=1,2,…,m},a i represents the i-th warhead to be evaluated; the set of missile warhead damage elements participating in the evaluation is E = {e j |j=1,2,…,n}, the component weight set is W={w j |j=1,2,…,n}; the original data matrix of each damage element is:

[0009]

[0010] (1) In the formula, x ij represents the missile warhead a obtained by the test i Damage element j data, x poor j Indicates the lowest damage index data of the same type of ammunition, xideal j Indicates the highest damage index data among the same type of ammunition.

[0011] Step 2: Standardize the original data matrix (1). The process is carried out according to formula (2):

[0012]

[0013] Finally, the standardized evaluation data matrix (3) for evaluation is obtained

[0014]

[0015] Step 3: Solve the dominant stream function. Combined with equation (3), in the damage element e j Based on the analysis of the missile warhead a i to a v The dominant stream function is

[0016]

[0017] In the damage element j According to the analysis of the missile warhead a i The dominant stream function for all other missile warheads is

[0018]

[0019] Step 4: Information fusion of dominant advantage flow. Since it is necessary to comprehensively consider the contribution of all damage elements to the damage capability of the missile warhead, it is necessary to fuse the dominant advantage flow of the missile warhead over other missile warheads in all damage element analysis to solve the comprehensive advantage of a certain missile warhead over other missile warheads. Suppose the comprehensive advantage of a missile warhead over other missile warheads ψ(a i ) and the missile warhead in each damage element analysis The comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead over other missile warheadsψ j (a i ) is

[0020] ψ(a i )=F(ψ1(a i ),ψ2(a i ),…,ψ j (a i ),…,ψ n (a i )) (6)

[0021] And the remaining state quantity of the component and its subordinate components satisfies:

[0022]

[0023] According to the usage, let ψ min (a i )=0、ψ max (a i )=1. i ),ψ2(a i ),…,ψ j (a i ),…,ψ n (a i ) as coordinates to construct an n-dimensional coordinate system. The comprehensive advantages of the missile warhead correspond to the points in the n-dimensional coordinate system. These points constitute the advantage space [0,1] that describes the comprehensive advantages of the missile warhead's destructive capability. n ; Assume that the comprehensive advantage of the destructive capability of a missile warhead is ψ(a i )=0, then in the advantage space, the corresponding ψ(a i ) is ψ1(a i ),ψ2(a i ),…,ψ j (a i ),…,ψ n (a i ), where 0≤ψ j (a i )≤1;ψ max (a i ) corresponding point and ψ(a i ) The distance d(a) between the corresponding points i ) can be used to measure the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead that needs to be improved from the original comprehensive advantage to the maximum comprehensive advantage, then d max -d(a i ) can be used to measure the comprehensive advantages of the missile warhead itself.

[0024] Step 5: Express d(a) in the form of Euclidean distance i ), then d(a i ) can be expressed as

[0025]

[0026] Step 6: The comprehensive advantage of the destructive capability of a missile warhead is:

[0027]

[0028] Among them, α is a nonlinear adjustment factor, which is used to adjust the nonlinearity of the fusion between the comprehensive advantage and the advantages of each damage element, and is generally between 0.45 and 0.8.

[0029] Step 7: After obtaining the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead damage capability, it is necessary to further consider the regret value of the decision maker for a certain damage element when using the missile in a specific scenario. This regret value includes the utility of the actual use of the missile. The regret value needs to consider the actual situation of the damage element, as shown in formula (10):

[0030]

[0031] Step 8, consider the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead's damage capability and the regret value for a certain damage element at the same time. According to the calculation results of equations (9) and (10), two sets of ordinals can be obtained. The elements in the two sets of ordinals are r1(a j ) and r2(a j ), considering the order-preserving problem of comprehensive calculation, the final comprehensive evaluation result of missile warhead damage capability can be obtained as shown in formula (11):

[0032]

[0033] Formula (11) can be used to calculate the final comprehensive score of the missile warhead damage capability. From the above process, it can be seen that the comprehensive score takes into account both the "damage capability of all damage elements" and the "regret value for individual damage elements". This can avoid choosing a warhead use plan that is unsatisfactory in terms of damage elements in certain scenarios. In this way, the missile's damage capability can be accurately ranked and the optimal missile design and use plan can be obtained. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0034] Figure 1 The embodiment of the present invention shows the fusion geometric relationship of a missile warhead that mainly produces three types of damage elements in the advantageous space;

[0035] Figure 2 This is a state diagram of a certain type of missile before testing in the present invention.

[0036] Figure 3 It is an example diagram of the meaning of variables in the present invention;

[0037] Figure 4 It is the damage element composition of the missile damage capability of the ship in the embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0038] In order to make the above-mentioned objects, features and advantages of the present invention more obvious and understandable, the present invention is further described in detail below with reference to embodiments and drawings.

[0039] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a missile warhead damage capability assessment method based on the comprehensive analysis of the Euclidean space gain and loss advantage distance. The method takes three types of missile warheads as examples, obtains damage element related data after multiple tests, and conducts a comprehensive assessment of the missile warhead damage capability based on the damage element data.

[0040] In order to achieve the above task, the present invention proposes a missile warhead damage capability evaluation method based on a comprehensive analysis of the gain and loss advantage distance in Euclidean space, comprising the following steps:

[0041] Step 1: Determine the representation method of missile warhead damage capability assessment information and define related sets and variables. Suppose the missile warhead set involved in the assessment is A = {a i |i=1,2,…,m},a i represents the i-th warhead to be evaluated; the set of missile warhead damage elements participating in the evaluation is E = {e j |j=1,2,…,n}, the component weight set is W={w j |j=1,2,…,n}; the original data matrix of each damage element is:

[0042]

[0043] (1) In the formula, x ij represents the missile warhead a obtained by the test i Damage element j data, x poor j Indicates the lowest damage index data of the same type of ammunition, x ideal j Indicates the highest damage index data among the same type of ammunition.

[0044] Among them, m=3 (three types of missile warheads), and when performing information fusion, n=7 (representing the 7 types of damage elements generated by the missile warhead).

[0045] Step 2: Standardize the original data matrix (1). The process is carried out according to formula (2):

[0046]

[0047] Finally, the standardized evaluation data matrix (3) for evaluation is obtained

[0048]

[0049] Step 3: Solve the dominant stream function. Combined with equation (3), in the damage element e j Based on the analysis of the missile warhead a i to a v The dominant stream function is

[0050]

[0051] In the damage element j According to the analysis of the missile warhead a i The dominant stream function for all other missile warheads is

[0052]

[0053] Step 4: Information fusion of dominant advantage flow. This step is the most critical step, which requires the effective fusion of the advantages of all damage elements. Since it is necessary to comprehensively consider the contribution of all damage elements to the damage capability of the missile warhead, it is necessary to fuse the information of the dominant advantage flow of the missile warhead over other missile warheads in all damage element analysis to solve the comprehensive advantage of a certain missile warhead over other missile warheads. Suppose the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead over other missile warheads ψ(a i ) and the missile warhead in each damage element analysis The comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead over other missile warheadsψ j (a i ) is

[0054] ψ(a i )=F(ψ1(a i ),ψ2(a i ),…,ψ j (a i ),…,ψ n (a i )) (6)

[0055] And the remaining state quantity of the component and its subordinate components satisfies:

[0056]

[0057] According to the usage, let ψ min (a i )=0、ψ max (a i )=1. i ),ψ2(a i ),…,ψ j (a i ),…,ψ n (a i ) as coordinates to construct an n-dimensional coordinate system. The comprehensive advantages of the missile warhead correspond to the points in the n-dimensional coordinate system. These points constitute the advantage space [0,1] that describes the comprehensive advantages of the missile warhead's destructive capability. n ; Assume that the comprehensive advantage of the destructive capability of a missile warhead is ψ(a i)=0, then in the advantage space, the corresponding ψ(a i ) is ψ1(a i ),ψ2(a i ),…,ψ j (a i ),…,ψ n (a i ), where 0≤ψ j (a i )≤1;ψ max (a i ) corresponding point and ψ(a i ) The distance d(a) between the corresponding points i ) can be used to measure the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead that needs to be improved from the original comprehensive advantage to the maximum comprehensive advantage, then d max -d(a i ) can be used to measure the comprehensive advantages of the missile warhead itself.

[0058] Step 5, by the way, it is convenient to measure d(a i ), expressed as Euclidean distance d(a i ), then d(a i ) can be expressed as

[0059]

[0060] Step 6: The comprehensive advantage of the destructive capability of a missile warhead is:

[0061]

[0062] Among them, α is a nonlinear adjustment factor. In this information fusion process, according to the test results and expert opinions, the value is 0.7.

[0063] Step 7: After obtaining the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead damage capability, it is necessary to further consider the regret value of the decision maker for a certain damage element when using the missile in a specific scenario. This regret value includes the utility of the actual use of the missile. The regret value needs to consider the actual situation of the damage element, as shown in formula (10):

[0064]

[0065] Step 8, consider the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead's damage capability and the regret value for a certain damage element at the same time. According to the calculation results of equations (9) and (10), two sets of ordinals can be obtained. The elements in the two sets of ordinals are r1(a j ) and r2(a j ), considering the order-preserving problem of comprehensive calculation, the final comprehensive evaluation result of missile warhead damage capability can be obtained as shown in formula (11):

[0066]

[0067] Formula (11) is used to calculate the final comprehensive score of the missile warhead’s destructive capability.

[0068] For the three types of missile warheads, experts evaluated the weights of various damage elements generated by the warheads, and integrated the opinions of various experts to obtain the damage element weight values ​​shown in Table 1, which reflects the relative importance of each damage element.

[0069] Table 1 Weight values ​​of each damage element

[0070]

[0071] Experts were invited to conduct experiments, and damage metadata of various types of missiles were obtained through the experiments to form matrix (1). After standardization using formula (2), matrix (3) was obtained, and the standardized damage metadata shown in Table 2 was obtained.

[0072] Table 2 Standardized damage metadata

[0073]

[0074] Combination Figure 4 , Substitute the evaluation data in Table 1 and Table 2 into equations (4), (9) and (10), and set α to 0.7 according to the historical experience of this embodiment. i ) and Γ(a i ) is substituted into formula (11) to obtain the comprehensive evaluation results of the destructive capabilities of the three types of missile warheads:

[0075] a3>a2>a1, a3 is the optimal missile warhead available.

[0076] Analyze the evaluation results.

[0077] The missile warhead a3 obtained the highest comprehensive evaluation result, so a3 is the best missile warhead to use. However, during the calculation process, it can be seen that the overall advantage of the missile warhead a2 is ψ(a i ) is the highest, and the overall advantage of a2 is much higher than that of a3, which shows that a2 is relatively successful in warhead design. However, due to the regret value Γ(a i) is also much higher than a3, which leads to the comprehensive evaluation result of a2 being lower than a3. This also shows that a2 has defects in a certain damage element, which makes the user dissatisfied with a2 during use. Comprehensive analysis of Table 2 shows that the damage element with design problems is the number of e5 fragments. By optimizing and correcting the design of this damage element, the damage capability of missile warhead a2 can be greatly improved. The overall advantage and final evaluation result of warhead a1 are the lowest, because missile warhead a1 has no advantage over a2 and a3. Therefore, after considering the overall advantage and regret value of warhead a1, the comprehensive evaluation result of a1 is the lowest.

[0078] By comprehensively analyzing the overall advantage of the missile warhead's destructive capability and the regret value of using a certain destructive element, the optimal missile warhead can be obtained, and a comprehensive analysis can be conducted on missile warheads that have potential for use but are not suitable for use in certain occasions, so as to optimize their design or change their use scenarios. If the regret value of using a certain destructive element is too high and cannot be compensated, then even if the missile's overall destructive capability advantage is the best, it should be avoided from being used. This is one of the important uses of the present invention.

Claims

1. A missile warhead damage capability assessment method based on a comprehensive analysis of the Euclidean space gain and loss advantage distance includes the following steps: Step 1: Determine the representation method of missile warhead damage capability assessment information and define related sets and variables. Suppose the missile warhead set involved in the assessment is A = {a i |i=1,2,…,m},a i represents the i-th warhead to be evaluated; the set of missile warhead damage elements participating in the evaluation is E = {e j |j=1,2,…,n}, the component weight set is W={w j |j=1,2,…,n}; the original data matrix of each damage element is: (1) In the formula, x ij represents the missile warhead a obtained by the test i Damage element j data, x poorj Indicates the lowest damage index data of the same type of ammunition, x idealj Indicates the highest damage indicator data among the same type of ammunition; Step 2: Standardize the original data matrix (1) according to formula (2): Finally, the standardized evaluation data matrix (3) for evaluation is obtained: Step 3: Solve the dominant stream function and combine it with equation (3) to get the damage element e j Based on the analysis of the missile warhead a i to a v The dominant stream function of is: In the damage element j In the analysis of the missile warhead a i The dominant stream function for all other missile warheads is: Step 4: Information fusion of dominant advantage flow. Since it is necessary to comprehensively consider the contribution of all damage elements to the damage capability of the missile warhead, it is necessary to fuse the dominant advantage flow of the missile warhead over other missile warheads in all damage element analysis to solve the comprehensive advantage of a certain missile warhead over other missile warheads. Suppose the comprehensive advantage of a missile warhead over other missile warheads ψ(a i ) and the comprehensive advantages of missile warheads over other missile warheads in the analysis of various damage elementsψ j (a i ) is: ψ(a i )=F(ψ1(a i ),ψ2(a i ),…,ψ j (a i ),…,ψ n (a i )) (6) And the remaining state quantity of the component and its subordinate components satisfies: With ψ1(a i ),ψ2(a i ),…,ψ j (a i ),…,ψ n (a i ) as coordinates to construct an n-dimensional coordinate system, then the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead corresponds to the point in the n-dimensional coordinate system; suppose the comprehensive advantage of the destructive capability of a missile warhead is ψ(a i ), then in the advantage space, it corresponds to ψ(a i ) is ψ1(a i ),ψ2(a i ),…,ψ j (a i ),…,ψ n (a i );ψ max (a i ) corresponding point and ψ(a i ) The distance d(a) between the corresponding points i ) can be used to measure the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead that needs to be improved from the original comprehensive advantage to the maximum comprehensive advantage, then d max -d(a i ) can be used to measure the comprehensive advantages of the missile warhead itself; Step 5: Express d(a) in the form of Euclidean distance i ), then d(a i ) can be expressed as: Step 6: The comprehensive advantage of the destructive capability of a missile warhead is: in, α is a nonlinear adjustment factor, which is used to adjust the nonlinearity of the fusion between the comprehensive advantage and the advantages of each damage element; Step 7: After obtaining the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead damage capability, it is necessary to further consider the regret value of the decision maker for a certain damage element when using the missile in a specific scenario. This regret value includes the utility of the actual use of the missile. The regret value needs to consider the actual situation of the damage element, as shown in formula (10): Step 8: Considering the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead's destructive capability and the regret value for a certain damage element, two sets of ordinals can be obtained according to the calculation results of equations (9) and (10). The elements in the two sets of ordinals are r1(a j ) and r2(a j ), considering the order-preserving problem of comprehensive calculation, the final comprehensive evaluation result of missile warhead damage capability can be obtained as shown in formula (11): Formula (11) can be used to calculate the final comprehensive score of the missile warhead damage capability. From the above process, it can be seen that the comprehensive score takes into account both the "damage capability of all damage elements" and the "regret value for individual damage elements". This can avoid choosing a warhead use plan that is unsatisfactory in terms of damage elements in certain scenarios. In this way, the missile's damage capability can be accurately ranked and the optimal missile design and use plan can be obtained.

2. The missile warhead damage capability assessment method based on the comprehensive analysis of Euclidean space gain and loss advantage distance according to claim 1 is characterized by: The missile warhead set involved in the evaluation is A = {a i |i=1,2,…,m}, m is a natural number from 3 to 5; the set of missile warhead damage elements involved in the evaluation is E={e j |j=1,2,…,n}, n is a natural number from 5 to 9; the component weight set is W={w j |j=1,2,…,n};w j It is 0.01~0.

3.

3. The missile warhead damage capability assessment method based on the comprehensive analysis of the Euclidean space gain and loss advantage distance according to claim 1 is characterized by: According to practical experience, min (a i )=0、ψ max (a i )=1; the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead corresponds to the points in the n-dimensional coordinate system, which constitute the advantage space [0,1] describing the comprehensive advantage of the missile warhead's destructive capability. n ; Assume that the comprehensive advantage of the destructive capability of a missile warhead is ψ(a i ), then 0≤ψ(a i )≤1.

4. The missile warhead damage capability assessment method based on the comprehensive analysis of Euclidean space gain and loss advantage distance according to claim 1 is characterized by: The value of the advantage fusion algorithm coefficient α is 0.45 to 0.8.

Images