A method for evaluating the effectiveness of shipborne radar active jamming systems

Abstract

The present invention discloses a method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system, comprising the following steps: S1: constructing a radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system; S2: obtaining the subjective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer; S3: obtaining the objective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer; S4: obtaining a normalized combined weight vector; and S5: evaluating the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system. Based on the construction of the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system, the present invention utilizes a subjective weighting method and an objective weighting method for combined weighting, and combines them with Vague sets to evaluate the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system. This method fully utilizes the advantages of Vague sets in handling fuzzy problems and solving weights through combined weighting, thereby achieving a reliable evaluation of the effectiveness of the shipborne radar active jamming system and making the evaluation results more realistic and reliable. This improves the practicality of shipborne radar active jamming system effectiveness evaluation.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to a method for evaluating the effectiveness of jamming, and in particular to a method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system. Background Art

[0002] Shipborne electronic warfare systems play a critical role in modern naval warfare within complex electromagnetic environments. The radar active jamming subsystem, as a core component, significantly impacts the success rate of a ship's air and missile defenses. Therefore, scientific and rational performance evaluation can guide the system's operational deployment and further enhance the overall system's effectiveness.

[0003] Many scholars have conducted basic research on the effectiveness evaluation of radar active jamming systems. However, the existing research methods lack discussion on the fuzziness of indicator weights, and traditional computational models are difficult to handle both qualitative and quantitative issues at the same time. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The present invention provides a method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system to overcome the above technical problems.

[0005] The specific implementation plan is as follows:

[0006] A method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system comprises the following steps:

[0007] S1: Constructing a radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system; including a target layer; the target layer including several criterion layers, and the criterion layer including several indicators;

[0008] S2: Obtain the subjective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer according to the subjective weighting method;

[0009] S3: Obtaining the objective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer according to the objective weighting method;

[0010] S4: obtaining a normalized combined weight vector according to the subjective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer and the objective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer;

[0011] S5: Evaluate the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system according to the Vague set and the normalized combined weight vector.

[0012] Furthermore, in S2, the method for obtaining the subjective weight of the indicator under the criterion layer is as follows:

[0013] S21: Sort the importance of the indicators in the criterion layer, denoted as X = {x1, ...x i ,…,x n}; X is the sorted indicator vector; i is the number of indicators in the criterion layer; n is the number of indicators in the criterion layer;

[0014] S22: Determine the xth i-1 The index relative to the xth i The relative importance of the indicators r i-1,i ;

[0015] S23: Calculate the nth indicator x in the criterion layer n The subjective weight w n :

[0016]

[0017] In the formula, k is the intermediate parameter in the calculation formula;

[0018] S24: Get the subjective weights of all indicators except the nth indicator in the criterion layer:

[0019] ω i-1 =r i-1，i ω i (i=n,n-1,…,3,2) (2).

[0020] Furthermore, in S3, the method for obtaining the objective weights of the indicators in the criterion layer is as follows:

[0021] S31: Construct the judgment matrix as follows:

[0022]

[0023] Where: T is the judgment matrix; x di represents the i-th indicator in the d-th evaluation sample; D is the number of evaluation samples; d is the number of evaluation samples;

[0024] S32: Obtain a normalized matrix of the judgment matrix to obtain each element in the normalized matrix;

[0025]

[0026] Where: Z di is the element in the dth row and ith column of the normalized matrix Z; x di represents the i-th indicator in the d-th evaluation sample;

[0027] S33: Calculate the probability p of the i-th indicator under the d-th evaluation sample di ;

[0028]

[0029] S34: Calculate the inverse information entropy of each indicator in the criterion layer;

[0030]

[0031] Where, e i is the inverse information entropy of the i-th indicator in the criterion layer;

[0032] S35: Determine the objective weight of each indicator in the criterion layer:

[0033]

[0034] Furthermore, in S4, the method for obtaining the normalized combined weight vector is as follows:

[0035] S41: Obtain the basic weight vector of the subjective weight of the criterion layer and the basic weight vector of the objective weight of the criterion layer respectively:

[0036] W g ={w1,…,w i ,…,w n}, g=1,……G (8)

[0037] V g ={v1,…,v i ,…,v n} (9)

[0038] Where W g The basic weight vector representing the subjective weight of the g-th criterion layer; w i The i-th index x i The subjective weight of: G represents the number of criterion layers, g represents the number of criterion layers; V g The basic weight vector representing the objective weight of the g-th criterion layer; v i Represents the i-th index x i The objective weight of:

[0039] S42: Obtain the linear coefficient α of the subjective weighting method respectively w and the linear coefficient α of the objective weighting method v ;

[0040]

[0041] Where: α gw is the linear coefficient of the subjective weighting method of the g-th criterion layer; α gv is the linear coefficient of the objective weighting method of the g-th criterion layer;

[0042] S43: Normalize the linear coefficients of the subjective weighting method and the objective weighting method respectively:

[0043]

[0044] Where: is the normalized linear coefficient of the subjective weighting method; is the normalized linear coefficient of the objective weighting method; W g The basic weight vector representing the subjective weight of the g-th criterion layer; V g The basis weight vector representing the objective weight of the g-th criterion layer;

[0045] S44: Get the normalized combined weight vector:

[0046]

[0047] Where: is the normalized combined weight vector of the g-th criterion layer.

[0048] Furthermore, in S5, the method for evaluating the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system is as follows:

[0049] S51: Set the comment set;

[0050] S52: Establish Vague set evaluation matrix R;

[0051]

[0052] Where r gi represents the evaluation value of the i-th indicator in the g-th criterion layer; where G represents the number of criterion layers, g represents the number of criterion layers; I represents the number of indicators in each criterion layer, i represents the number of indicators in each criterion layer; r gi =[t gi ,1-f gi ], where t gi is the membership degree of the i-th indicator in the g-th criterion layer, f gi is the non-membership degree of the i-th indicator in the g-th criterion layer;

[0053] S53: Obtaining a comprehensive evaluation Vague value of the criterion layer according to the normalized combined weight vector;

[0054]

[0055] Where B g is the comprehensive evaluation Vague value of the g-th criterion layer, is the normalized combined weight vector; An operator representing matrix multiplication;

[0056] S54: Obtain the Vague set value B for comprehensive evaluation of radar active jamming effectiveness:

[0057]

[0058] Where: B is the Vague set value of the comprehensive evaluation of radar active jamming effectiveness;

[0059] S55: Evaluating the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system according to the Vague set value of the comprehensive evaluation of the radar active jamming effectiveness.

[0060] Furthermore, the criterion layer includes interference energy efficiency N1, interference range efficiency N2, and interference aiming efficiency N3; the indicators under the interference energy efficiency N1 include transmission power N 11 , interference suppression coefficient N 12 and minimum interference distance N 13 The interference range performance indicators under N2 include time domain coverage capability N 21 , airspace coverage capability N 22 and frequency domain coverage capability N 23 The interference aiming effectiveness N3 indicators include guidance accuracy N 31 , multi-target jamming capability N 32 and reaction time N 33 .

[0061] Furthermore, the interference suppression coefficient is calculated as follows:

[0062]

[0063] Where S is the interference suppression coefficient, R is the distance between the jammer and the radar, and P j is the jammer transmission power, G j is the interference antenna gain, L j is the polarization loss, P r is the radar transmission power, G r is the radar antenna gain, η is the radar reflection area, λ is the radar feeder loss, f0 is the radar receiver intermediate frequency bandwidth, f j is the interference signal bandwidth.

[0064] Furthermore, the time domain coverage capability is calculated as follows:

[0065]

[0066] Where Q is the time domain coverage capability, t ea -t sa is the jammer's jamming duration for the first segment, T2-T1 is the jammed radar's operating duration, ω ais the weight of the interference duration of the ath segment; a is the number of times the jammer interferes; b is the total number of times the jammer interferes.

[0067] Furthermore, the guidance accuracy is calculated as follows:

[0068]

[0069]

[0070]

[0071] N 31 =W f ×C f +W prf ×C prf +W pw ×C pw (twenty two)

[0072] Where C f is the frequency guidance accuracy; C prf is the repetition frequency guidance accuracy; C pw is the pulse width guidance accuracy; F1 is the frequency of the jammed radar signal; F2 is the frequency of the radar signal identified by the electronic warfare system; Z1 is the repetition rate of the jammed radar signal; Z2 is the repetition rate of the radar signal identified by the electronic warfare system; P1 is the pulse width of the jammed radar signal; P2 is the pulse width of the radar signal identified by the electronic warfare system; W f is the weight coefficient of frequency guidance accuracy; W prf is the weight coefficient of the repetition frequency guidance accuracy; W pw is the weight coefficient of pulse width guidance accuracy.

[0073] Beneficial Effects: The present invention provides a shipborne radar active jamming system effectiveness evaluation method. Based on the construction of a radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system, the method utilizes a subjective weighting method and an objective weighting method for combined weighting, and combines the Vague sets to evaluate the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system. This method fully utilizes the advantages of Vague sets in handling fuzzy problems and solving weights through combined weighting, thereby achieving a reliable evaluation of the shipborne radar active jamming system effectiveness and making the evaluation results more realistic and reliable. This improves the practicality of shipborne radar active jamming system effectiveness evaluation. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0074] In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the following is a brief introduction to the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying any creative labor.

[0075] Figure 1 This is a flow chart of the effectiveness evaluation of the shipborne radar active jamming system of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0076] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention more clear, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings of the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. All other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field based on the embodiments of the present invention without making any creative efforts shall fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0077] The present invention discloses a method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system. Figure 1 As shown, the following steps are included:

[0078] S1: Constructing a radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system; including a target layer; the target layer including several criterion layers, and the criterion layer including several indicators;

[0079] This paper utilizes the G1 method in the subjective weighting method and the anti-entropy weight method in the objective weighting method to first sequentially calculate the subjective and objective weights of the indicators in each criterion layer. Then, it uses a game theory-based combined weighting model to perform combined weighting, ultimately achieving the solution of subjective and objective weights. The weight solution is more realistic and reliable.

[0080] S2: Obtain the subjective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer through the G1 weighting method. Specifically, the G1 weighting method determines the indicator weights by ranking the importance of the indicators. The specific steps are as follows:

[0081] Preferably, the method for obtaining the subjective weight of the indicators under the criterion layer is as follows:

[0082] S21: Sort the importance of the indicators in the criterion layer, denoted as X = {x1, ...x i ,…,x n}; X is the sorted indicator vector; i is the number of indicators in the criterion layer; n is the number of indicators in the criterion layer;

[0083] Specifically, the method adopted in this embodiment is to invite multiple experts in the field to evaluate and rank the importance of indicators based on their experience;

[0084] S22: Determine the xth i-1 The index relative to the xth i The relative importance of the indicators r i-1,i ;

[0085] Specifically, in this embodiment, the xth i-1 The index relative to the xth i The relative importance of the indicators r i-1,i The method is also determined by technical experts in the field based on their many years of work experience according to Table 1.

[0086] Table 1 Indicator importance judgment criteria

[0087]

[0088] S23: Calculate the nth indicator x in the criterion layer n The subjective weight w n :

[0089]

[0090] In the formula, k is the intermediate parameter in the calculation formula;

[0091] S24: Get the subjective weights of all indicators except the nth indicator:

[0092] ω i-1 =r i-1，i ω i (i=n,n-1,…,3,2) (2).

[0093] S3: According to the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system, since the basic idea of ​​the anti-entropy weight method is that the greater the variation of the index, the greater the anti-entropy value, and thus the weight, the objective weight of the index under the criterion layer is obtained based on the anti-entropy weight method;

[0094] Preferably, in S3, the method for obtaining the objective weight of the indicator is as follows:

[0095] S31: Construct a judgment matrix including D evaluation samples and n evaluation indicators; wherein the evaluation samples are indicator data of the active jamming system, which can be obtained through the existing electronic countermeasure digital simulation system.

[0096] The judgment matrix is ​​as follows:

[0097]

[0098] Where: T is the judgment matrix; x di represents the i-th indicator in the d-th evaluation sample; D is the number of evaluation samples; d is the number of evaluation samples;

[0099] S32: Obtaining a normalized matrix of the judgment matrix to normalize the judgment matrix to a non-negative interval, and obtaining each element in the normalized matrix;

[0100]

[0101] Where: Z di is the element in the dth row and ith column of the normalized matrix Z; x di represents the i-th indicator in the d-th evaluation sample; d is the number of the evaluation sample;

[0102] S33: Calculate the probability p of the i-th indicator under the d-th evaluation sample di ;

[0103]

[0104] S34: Calculate the inverse information entropy of each indicator in the criterion layer;

[0105] The calculation formula is

[0106]

[0107] Where, e i is the inverse information entropy of the i-th indicator in the criterion layer;

[0108] S35: Determine the objective weight of each indicator in the criterion layer:

[0109]

[0110] S4: Obtain a normalized combined weight vector based on the subjective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer and the objective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer. Specifically, since the game theory combined weighting method can better take into account the advantages of both subjective and objective weighting methods, this embodiment adopts this method to obtain the normalized combined weight vector:

[0111] S41: Obtain the basic weight vector of the subjective weight and the basic weight vector of the objective weight of the criterion layer respectively:

[0112] W g ={w1,…,w i ,…,w n}, g=1,……G (8)

[0113] V g ={v1,…,v i ,…,vn} (9)

[0114] Where W g The basic weight vector representing the subjective weight of the g-th criterion layer; w i The i-th index x i The subjective weight of: G represents the number of criterion layers, g represents the number of criterion layers; V g The basic weight vector representing the objective weight of the g-th criterion layer; v i Represents the i-th index x i The objective weight of:

[0115] S42: Obtain the linear coefficient α of the subjective weighting method respectively w and the linear coefficient α of the objective weighting method v Specifically, we use game theory to optimize the linear combination coefficients to minimize the deviation, and then solve the equations:

[0116]

[0117] Where: α gw is the linear coefficient of the subjective weighting method of the g-th criterion layer; α gv is the linear coefficient of the objective weighting method of the g-th criterion layer;

[0118] S43: Normalize the linear coefficients of the subjective weighting method and the objective weighting method respectively:

[0119]

[0120]

[0121] Where: is the normalized linear coefficient of the subjective weighting method; is the normalized linear coefficient of the objective weighting method; W g The basic weight vector representing the subjective weight of the g-th criterion layer; V g The basis weight vector representing the objective weight of the g-th criterion layer;

[0122] S44: Get the normalized combined weight vector:

[0123]

[0124] Where: is the normalized combined weight vector of the g-th criterion layer.

[0125] S5: Evaluate the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system based on the Vague set and the normalized combined weight vector. Specifically, Vague set theory simultaneously measures hesitation, membership, and non-membership, better characterizing real-world problems and providing an effective tool for resolving the ambiguity of effectiveness evaluation theory. The specific evaluation model is as follows:

[0126] S51: Set the review set. In this embodiment, a five-level classification is established, that is, K = {level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, level 5} = {excellent, good, fair, poor, bad}. This classification method is commonly used in the field.

[0127] S52: Establish the Vague set evaluation matrix R.

[0128]

[0129] Where r gi represents the evaluation value of the i-th indicator in the g-th criterion layer; where G represents the number of criterion layers, g represents the number of criterion layers; I represents the number of indicators in each criterion layer, i represents the number of indicators in each criterion layer; r gi =[t gi ,1-f gi ], where t gi is the membership degree of the i-th indicator in the g-th criterion layer, f gi is the non-membership degree of the i-th indicator in the g-th criterion layer;

[0130] Specifically, during the expert group evaluation process, the expert group members are allowed to give up the judgment of some indicators, that is, the hesitation in vague set. For example, if there are 10 experts evaluating the recognition ability, if 2 choose excellent, 3 choose good, 4 choose fair, and 1 abstains, the evaluation result will be:

[0131] ([0.1,0.3],[0.3,0.4],[0.4,0.5],[0.0,0.1],[0.0,0.1).

[0132] S53: Obtaining a comprehensive evaluation Vague value of the criterion layer according to the normalized combined weight vector;

[0133]

[0134] Where B g is the comprehensive evaluation Vague value of the g-th criterion layer, that is, the g-th comprehensive evaluation Vague subset of the comment set, is the normalized combined weight vector; Operator representing matrix multiplication.

[0135] S54: Obtain the Vague set value B for comprehensive evaluation of radar active jamming effectiveness:

[0136]

[0137] Where: B is the Vague set value of the comprehensive evaluation of radar active jamming effectiveness;

[0138] S55: Evaluate the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system based on the Vague set values ​​for the comprehensive evaluation of the radar active jamming effectiveness. Specifically, evaluating based on the Vague set values ​​for the comprehensive evaluation of the radar active jamming effectiveness is a prior art technique. This embodiment merely utilizes the Vague set method to implement the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system described in this patent. Therefore, the specific process will not be described in detail here.

[0139] Preferably, since the shipborne radar active jamming system transmits electromagnetic jamming signals through shipborne high-power signal generating equipment to affect the tracking and detection of radar equipment on sea and air platforms, it has the characteristics of wide airspace coverage, fast response speed, long duration and multiple jamming styles.

[0140] There are many factors that affect the effectiveness of the shipborne radar active jamming system. Based on the working principle of the shipborne radar active jamming system and the construction principle of the index system, an interference effectiveness evaluation index system is established, as shown in Table 1. The criterion layer indicators of the shipborne radar active jamming system are mainly reflected by the interference energy efficiency, interference range efficiency and interference aiming efficiency. The criterion layer of this embodiment includes interference energy efficiency N1, interference range efficiency N2, and interference aiming efficiency N3; the indicators under the interference energy efficiency N1 include the transmission power N 11 , interference suppression coefficient N 12 and minimum interference distance N 13 The interference range performance indicators under N2 include time domain coverage capability N 21 , airspace coverage capability N 22 and frequency domain coverage capability N 23 The interference aiming effectiveness N3 indicators include guidance accuracy N 31 , multi-target jamming capability N 32 and reaction time N 33 The transmission power, minimum interference distance, airspace coverage capability, frequency domain coverage capability, multi-target interference capability and reaction time can be obtained from the equipment combat parameters; see Table 2 for details:

[0141] Table 2 Effectiveness evaluation index system for shipborne radar active jamming system

[0142]

[0143] The guidance accuracy is calculated as follows: The guidance accuracy is the frequency guidance accuracy C f , repetition frequency guidance accuracy C prf and pulse width guidance accuracy C pw The weighted combination is as follows:

[0144]

[0145]

[0146]

[0147] N 31 =W f ×C f +W prf ×C prf +W pw ×C pw (twenty two)

[0148] Where C f is the frequency guidance accuracy; C prf is the repetition frequency guidance accuracy; C pw is the pulse width guidance accuracy; F1 is the frequency of the jammed radar signal; F2 is the frequency of the radar signal identified by the electronic warfare system; Z1 is the repetition rate of the jammed radar signal; Z2 is the repetition rate of the radar signal identified by the electronic warfare system; P1 is the pulse width of the jammed radar signal; P2 is the pulse width of the radar signal identified by the electronic warfare system; W f is the weight coefficient of frequency guidance accuracy; W prf is the weight coefficient of the repetition frequency guidance accuracy; W pw is the weight coefficient of pulse width guidance accuracy.

[0149] An example of the present invention is as follows:

[0150] 1. Calculate indicator weights

[0151] (1) G1 method to solve subjective weight

[0152] To ensure the accuracy of the evaluation, the expert group was invited to rank the importance of each indicator and give corresponding scores according to Table 2. Taking the indicators included in the interference energy efficiency N1 as an example, it is recorded as N1 = {N 11 ,N 12 ,N 13}.

[0153] After comprehensive consideration by experts, the importance ranking is determined to be N 12 ≥N 11 ≥N 13 , the new order is recorded as X = {x1, x2, x3}.

[0154] Experts rated X as r 1,2 =1.2, r 2,3 =1.2, so we can get w3=0.275, w1=0.330, w2=0.396, so the subjective weight vector: W N1 =[0.330,0.396,0.275].

[0155] (2) Anti-entropy weight method to solve objective weights

[0156] Based on the experimental data of a certain type of electronic countermeasure digital simulation system, the index parameters of the A0, A1, A2, A3, and A4 shipborne radar active jamming system, i.e., the evaluation samples, are given for calculation. The normalized judgment matrix Y of the criterion layer index jamming energy efficiency N1 is as follows:

[0157]

[0158] So we get the objective weight vector:

[0159] (3) Determine the combined weight vector

[0160] The combination weight is determined by the game theory centralized combination weighting model. Combining the above subjective and objective weight vector results, the combination weight vector is obtained: [0.327, 0.391, 0.283].

[0161] According to the above steps, the combined weights of the evaluation indicators of the shipborne radar active jamming system are calculated, and the calculation results are listed in Table 2.

[0162] 2. Performance evaluation based on Vague sets

[0163] After completing the combination weighting of each indicator, the expert group scored each indicator based on the comment set k = {excellent, good, average, poor, bad}, and the Vague value evaluation data were obtained as shown in Table 3.

[0164] Table 3 Expert group's comments on the Vague value of each indicator

[0165]

[0166] The Vague set comments of the criterion layer are obtained as shown in Table 4.

[0167] Table 4. Criteria layer Vague set comments

[0168]

[0169] So we get the target layer Vague set comment value B, which is finally expressed as

[0170] B=([0.499,0.491],[0.258.0.292],[0.166,0.166],[0.022,0.049],[0.000,0.027]).

[0171] According to the Vague set evaluation membership ranking principle: Excellent > Good > Fair > Poor > Bad, the operational effectiveness evaluation level of this shipborne radar active jamming system is "Excellent," consistent with the actual situation. In Table 4, the differences between adjacent solutions are large, fully demonstrating that the present invention can more effectively distinguish between good and bad jamming effects and has strong applicability.

[0172] The present invention fully utilizes the advantages of the Vague set evaluation model in processing fuzzy problems, and combines the subjective weighting method with the objective weighting method of the anti-entropy weight method to optimally determine the indicator weights, thereby evaluating the effectiveness of the shipborne radar active jamming system and improving the practicability of the effectiveness evaluation of the shipborne radar active jamming system.

[0173] The present invention addresses the effectiveness evaluation problem of shipborne radar active jamming systems by combining the advantages of Vague sets in handling fuzzy problems and in solving weighted problems through combined weighting. The method utilizes a game theory aggregation model to combine and weight the G1 method and the anti-entropy weight method. This method, combined with the Vague set evaluation model, yields a reliable evaluation of the effectiveness of the system. This method addresses the issues of strong randomness in evaluation results and poor adaptability in traditional evaluation methods, resulting in a scientific and reasonable evaluation conclusion.

[0174] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, rather than to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the above embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that they can still modify the technical solutions described in the above embodiments, or replace some or all of the technical features therein with equivalents. However, these modifications or replacements do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system, characterized in that: The steps include: S1: Construct an evaluation index system for the radar active jamming effectiveness of shipborne radar active jamming systems that emit electromagnetic jamming signals through shipborne high-power signal generation equipment to affect the tracking and detection of radar equipment on sea and air platforms; It includes a target layer; the target layer includes a plurality of criterion layers, and the criterion layer includes a plurality of indicators; The criteria layer includes interference energy efficiency N1, interference range efficiency N2, and interference aiming efficiency N3; the indicators under the interference energy efficiency N1 include transmission power N 11 , interference suppression coefficient N 12 and minimum interference distance N 13 The interference range performance indicators under N2 include time domain coverage capability N 21 , airspace coverage capability N 22 and frequency domain coverage capability N 23 The interference aiming effectiveness N3 indicators include guidance accuracy N 31 , multi-target jamming capability N 32 and reaction time N 33 ; The guidance accuracy is calculated as follows: N 31 =W f ×C f +W prf ×C prf +W pw ×C pw (22) Where C f is the frequency guidance accuracy; C prf is the repetition frequency guidance accuracy; C pw is the pulse width guidance accuracy; F1 is the frequency of the jammed radar signal; F2 is the frequency of the radar signal identified by the electronic warfare system; Z1 is the repetition rate of the jammed radar signal; Z2 is the repetition rate of the radar signal identified by the electronic warfare system; P1 is the pulse width of the jammed radar signal; P2 is the pulse width of the radar signal identified by the electronic warfare system; W f is the weight coefficient of frequency guidance accuracy; W prf is the weight coefficient of the repetition frequency guidance accuracy; W pw is the weight coefficient of pulse width guidance accuracy; S2: Obtain the subjective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer according to the subjective weighting method; S3: Obtaining the objective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer according to the objective weighting method; S4: obtaining a normalized combined weight vector according to the subjective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer and the objective weights of the indicators under the criterion layer; S5: Based on the Vague set and the normalized combined weight vector, the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system is evaluated to improve the success rate of ship air defense and anti-missile defense and enhance the combat effectiveness of the integrated system.

2. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system according to claim 1, wherein: In S2, the method for obtaining the subjective weight of the indicator under the criterion layer is as follows: S21: Sort the importance of the indicators in the criterion layer, denoted as X = {x1, ...x i ,…,x n }; X is the sorted indicator vector; i is the number of indicators in the criterion layer; n is the number of indicators in the criterion layer; S22: Determine the xth i-1 The index relative to the xth i The relative importance of the indicators r i-1,i ; S23: Calculate the nth indicator x in the criterion layer n The subjective weight w n : In the formula, k is the intermediate parameter in the calculation formula; S24: Get the subjective weights of all indicators except the nth indicator in the criterion layer: oh i-1 =r i-1，i oh i (i=n,n-1,…,3,2) (2).

3. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system according to claim 2, wherein: In S3, the method for obtaining the objective weights of the indicators in the criterion layer is as follows: S31: Construct the judgment matrix as follows: Where: T is the judgment matrix; x di represents the i-th indicator in the d-th evaluation sample; D is the number of evaluation samples; d is the number of evaluation samples; S32: Obtain a normalized matrix of the judgment matrix to obtain each element in the normalized matrix; Where: Z di is the element in the dth row and ith column of the normalized matrix Z; x di represents the i-th indicator in the d-th evaluation sample; S33: Calculate the probability p of the i-th indicator under the d-th evaluation sample di ; S34: Calculate the inverse information entropy of each indicator in the criterion layer; Where, e i is the inverse information entropy of the i-th indicator in the criterion layer; S35: Determine the objective weight of each indicator in the criterion layer:

4. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system according to claim 3, wherein: In S4, the method for obtaining the normalized combined weight vector is as follows: S41: Obtain the basic weight vector of the subjective weight of the criterion layer and the basic weight vector of the objective weight of the criterion layer respectively: W g ={w1,…,w i ,…,w n },g=1,……G (8) V g ={v1,…,v i ,…,v n } (9) Where W g The basic weight vector representing the subjective weight of the g-th criterion layer; w i The i-th index x i The subjective weight of: G represents the number of criterion layers, g represents the number of criterion layers; V g The basic weight vector representing the objective weight of the g-th criterion layer; v i Represents the i-th index x i The objective weight of: S42: Obtain the linear coefficient α of the subjective weighting method respectively w and the linear coefficient α of the objective weighting method v ; Where: α gw is the linear coefficient of the subjective weighting method of the g-th criterion layer; α gv is the linear coefficient of the objective weighting method of the g-th criterion layer; S43: Normalize the linear coefficients of the subjective weighting method and the objective weighting method respectively: Where: is the normalized linear coefficient of the subjective weighting method; is the normalized linear coefficient of the objective weighting method; W g The basic weight vector representing the subjective weight of the g-th criterion layer; V g The basis weight vector representing the objective weight of the g-th criterion layer; S44: Get the normalized combined weight vector: Where: is the normalized combined weight vector of the g-th criterion layer.

5. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system according to claim 4, wherein: In S5, the method for evaluating the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system is as follows: S51: Set the comment set; S52: Establish Vague set evaluation matrix R; Where r gi represents the evaluation value of the i-th indicator in the g-th criterion layer; Where G represents the number of criterion layers, g represents the number of criterion layers; I represents the number of indicators in each criterion layer, i represents the number of indicators in each criterion layer; r gi =[t gi ,1-f gi ], where t gi is the membership degree of the i-th indicator in the g-th criterion layer, f gi is the non-membership degree of the i-th indicator in the g-th criterion layer; S53: Obtaining a comprehensive evaluation Vague value of the criterion layer according to the normalized combined weight vector; Where B g is the comprehensive evaluation Vague value of the g-th criterion layer, is the normalized combined weight vector; An operator representing matrix multiplication; S54: Obtain the Vague set value B for comprehensive evaluation of radar active jamming effectiveness: Where: B is the Vague set value of the comprehensive evaluation of radar active jamming effectiveness; S55: Evaluating the radar active jamming effectiveness evaluation index system according to the Vague set value of the comprehensive evaluation of the radar active jamming effectiveness.

6. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system according to claim 1, wherein: The interference suppression coefficient is calculated as follows: Where S is the interference suppression coefficient, R is the distance between the jammer and the radar, and P j is the jammer transmission power, G j is the interference antenna gain, L j is the polarization loss, P r is the radar transmission power, G r is the radar antenna gain, η is the radar reflection area, λ is the radar feeder loss, f0 is the radar receiver intermediate frequency bandwidth, f j is the interference signal bandwidth.

7. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of a shipborne radar active jamming system according to claim 1, wherein: The time domain coverage capability is calculated as follows: Where Q is the time domain coverage capability, t ea -t sa is the jammer's jamming duration for the first segment, T2-T1 is the jammed radar's operating duration, ω a is the weight of the interference duration of the ath segment; a is the number of times the jammer interferes; b is the total number of times the jammer interferes.

Images