A simulation experiment design and evaluation method for mission planning verification

Abstract

The present application belongs to the field of aviation simulation technology, and particularly relates to a simulation test design and evaluation method for verification of mission planning. An evaluation index system is established, and the mission planning is evaluated based on the test results according to the evaluation index system to obtain the evaluation results, and then the test process is optimized based on the evaluation results. The test objects participating in the simulation are determined according to the mission scenario. After the initial situation and the test process are determined, the test data in the simulation test are evaluated by establishing an evaluation index system. The effectiveness and feasibility of the mission planning content are verified by calculating the result values. The advantages and disadvantages of different mission planning contents under the same mission can also be compared through the calculation results. A universal simulation test evaluation method is formed, which solves the problem of verifying the correctness and feasibility of the mission planning content, and can systematically evaluate the situation in which the mission planning achieves the mission requirements.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application belongs to the field of aviation simulation technology, and in particular relates to a simulation test design and evaluation method for mission planning verification. Background Art

[0002] When executing a task, the task planning system will plan the task according to the task content and provide task planning data. Task planning data generally includes the following aspects:

[0003] a) Path: Requires the execution unit to move along the planned path;

[0004] b) Sensor use: Requires the executing unit to use sensors according to the planning requirements, generally including sensor power on, use of specific sensor modes and parameters, sensor power off, etc.;

[0005] c) Weapon use: Requires the executing unit to use weapons according to the planning requirements, generally including the weapon placement location, weapon configuration parameters, etc.

[0006] For the content of the above task planning data, the feasibility and effectiveness of the planning content need to be verified.

[0007] The feasibility of the mission plan reflects the degree to which the executing unit complies with the mission plan requirements when executing the mission plan. The main reasons for deviations when executing the mission plan requirements are as follows:

[0008] a) Performance limitations of execution units: The execution capabilities of execution units (such as the aircraft's climb and descent capabilities, acceleration and deceleration capabilities, and turning radius) are subject to the performance limitations of the execution units themselves. If the execution content required by the mission plan exceeds these limitations, deviations will occur during execution.

[0009] b) Execution deviation of human-in-the-loop operators: For human-in-the-loop execution units, execution deviations (such as speed deviation, position deviation, time deviation, etc.) will inevitably occur when the operator controls the execution unit to execute the task planning requirements.

[0010] The effectiveness of mission planning reflects the degree to which the actual results of the execution unit's implementation of the mission plan meet the expected results of the mission. The main reasons for the deviation of this result are the following:

[0011] a) The execution results of the executing unit deviate from the mission plan;

[0012] b) Simplifying some scenario elements during mission planning, resulting in discrepancies between actual execution and planned content (for example, calculating aircraft attitude changes during planning assumed that aircraft attitude changes were instantaneous and required no time);

[0013] c) There are problems with the planning content itself, and even if the execution is completely consistent with the plan, the expected results of the task cannot be achieved.

[0014] For different mission planning systems or different mission contents, there is currently no universal simulation test design and evaluation method to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of different mission planning contents. Summary of the Invention

[0015] The purpose of this application is to provide a simulation experiment design and evaluation method for mission planning verification, so as to solve the problem that there is currently no universal simulation experiment design and evaluation method to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of different mission planning contents.

[0016] The technical solution of this application is: a simulation test design and evaluation method for cross-mission mission planning verification, including:

[0017] Determine the test subjects participating in the simulation based on the task scenario, and determine the test elements based on the test subjects. The test subjects include human-in-the-loop subjects and non-human-in-the-loop subjects.

[0018] According to the task scenario, the initial state is set for the test subjects, that is, the initial state of each test subject at the beginning of the simulation;

[0019] Design the test process based on the mission scenario and mission planning content, then control the test subjects to participate in the test process, conduct test process training, collect test data to determine the test subjects' prescribed actions, until they can fully perform the prescribed actions in the test process and complete the training;

[0020] Obtain feasibility-related indicators and effectiveness-related indicators in the mission planning content. Feasibility-related indicators include the number and related indicators of point constraints and interval constraints; effectiveness-related indicators include the number and related indicators of communication equipment, sensor equipment, and weapon equipment; calculate the weighted coefficients of each credibility data and effectiveness data; establish an evaluation indicator system based on feasibility evaluation and effectiveness evaluation based on feasibility-related indicators and effectiveness-related indicators; feasibility evaluation includes point constraint evaluation and interval constraint evaluation; effectiveness evaluation includes communication equipment effectiveness evaluation, sensor equipment effectiveness evaluation, and weapon equipment effectiveness evaluation;

[0021] Conduct simulation tests according to the test process, obtain simulation result data of each point constraint, interval constraint, communication equipment, sensor equipment and weapon equipment in the test results, use the simulation result data as the input of feasibility-related indicators and effectiveness-related indicators, combine the weighted coefficients to conduct feasibility evaluation and effectiveness evaluation, and obtain feasibility indicators and effectiveness indicators; further calculate the overall evaluation results of the mission planning based on the feasibility indicators and effectiveness indicators C; The overall assessment results of the mission planning C Compare with the standard value of the indicator. If it is greater than or equal to the standard value of the indicator, the task planning is judged to be feasible and effective; the overall evaluation result of the task planning C The calculation method is:

[0022] ;

[0023] in, is the feasibility index weighting coefficient, is the weighted coefficient of effectiveness index, As feasibility indicators, is an effectiveness indicator.

[0024] Preferably, the feasibility indicator Including point constraint index and interval constraint index; feasibility point constraint evaluation obtains point constraint index; interval constraint evaluation obtains interval constraint index; feasibility index is obtained by calculating point constraint index and interval constraint index. The calculation formula is:

[0025] ;

[0026] in, is the number of point constraints in the planning content that need to be evaluated, is the number of interval constraints in the planning content to be evaluated, is the point constraint weight coefficient, is the interval constraint weighting coefficient, which can be calculated and determined according to the hierarchical analysis method; For the Point constraint index, For the An interval constraint indicator.

[0027] Preferably, the point constraint index The calculation method is:

[0028] ;

[0029] in, is the number of test batches that meet the constraint index, is the total number of test batches.

[0030] Preferably, the interval constraint evaluation includes a strong interval constraint and a weak interval constraint, wherein the strong interval constraint The calculation method is:

[0031] ;

[0032] in, is the number of test batches that meet the constraint index, is the total number of test batches;

[0033] The weak interval constraint The calculation method is:

[0034] ;

[0035] in, For the The percentage of intervals that meet the constraint indicators in the total intervals in the experiment.

[0036] Preferably, the effectiveness indicator Including communication equipment effectiveness indicators, sensor equipment effectiveness indicators and weapon equipment effectiveness indicators; when conducting effectiveness evaluation, it is assumed that Communication equipment, sensor devices, If weapons and equipment of this type are involved in the calculation, the effectiveness index calculation method is:

[0037] ;

[0038] in, For the Weighted coefficient of effectiveness index of each communication equipment; For the Weighted coefficient of effectiveness index of each sensor device; For the Weighted coefficients of weapon equipment effectiveness indicators; is the weighted coefficient of survival effectiveness index, For the Communication equipment effectiveness indicators, For the Sensor device effectiveness indicators, For the Weapon equipment effectiveness indicators, Survival effectiveness indicator.

[0039] Preferably, the The calculation method of the effectiveness index of each communication device is:

[0040] ;

[0041] in, 、 、 For the Different weight coefficients of each communication device are determined according to different tasks by using the hierarchical analysis method. For the Communication equipment on / off indicators, For the Communication equipment delay indicators, For the Bit error indicators of communication equipment;

[0042] The said The calculation method of the effectiveness index of each sensor device is:

[0043] ;

[0044] in, 、 For the Different weighting coefficients of sensor devices, The weight coefficients of sensor devices are determined according to different tasks by using the analytic hierarchy process. For the The first detection distance indicator of each sensor device, For the The interception time ratio indicator of each sensor device;

[0045] The said The calculation method of the effectiveness index of each weapon equipment is as follows:

[0046] ;

[0047] in, 、 For the Different weight coefficients of weapons and equipment are determined according to different tasks by using the analytic hierarchy process. For the Hit rate indicators of weapons and equipment, For the The damage rate indicator of each weapon and equipment.

[0048] Preferably, the communication device on / off indicator The calculation method is:

[0049] ;

[0050] in, For the In the first experiment, The percentage of the time interval during which each communication device can communicate smoothly to the total required communication time interval. is the total number of test batches;

[0051] The communication equipment delay indicator The calculation method is:

[0052] ;

[0053] in, For the In the first experiment, Average communication delay of each communication device; For the In the first experiment, The expected average delay of each communication device during communication planning;

[0054] The communication equipment error indicator The calculation method is:

[0055] ;

[0056] in, For the In the first experiment, The percentage of the time interval when the bit error rate of each communication device is lower than the required value to the total communication smooth time interval.

[0057] Preferably, the first detection distance indicator The calculation method is:

[0058] ;

[0059] in, For the In the first experiment, The detection distance when a sensor device first detects a target, For the In the first experiment, The expected first detection distance when planning a sensor device, is the total number of test batches;

[0060] The interception time ratio indicator The calculation method is:

[0061] ;

[0062] in, For the In the first experiment, The percentage of time a sensor device actually intercepts a target when it is needed to do so. is the total number of test batches.

[0063] Preferably, the hit rate indicator The calculation method is:

[0064] ;

[0065] in, For the In the first test The number of times such weapons and equipment hit the target, For the In the first test The number of times such weapons and equipment were launched, is the total number of test batches;

[0066] The damage rate index The calculation method is:

[0067] ;

[0068] in, For the In the first test, The number of targets destroyed by this type of weapons and equipment, For the In the first test The number of times such weapons and equipment hit the target;

[0069] The survival effectiveness index The calculation method is:

[0070] ;

[0071] in, For the The number of combat units that survived the test, For the The number of combat units deployed in the test.

[0072] Preferably, the communication equipment effectiveness weighted coefficient, the sensor equipment effectiveness weighted coefficient and the weapon equipment effectiveness weighted coefficient are all calculated by the hierarchical analysis method.

[0073] The simulation test design and evaluation method for face-to-face task planning verification of the present application determines the test objects participating in the simulation according to the task scenario, determines the initial situation and test process, and then evaluates the test data in the simulation test by establishing an evaluation index system. The effectiveness and feasibility of the task planning content are verified by calculating the result value, and the advantages and disadvantages of different task planning contents under the same task can also be compared through the calculation results. A universal simulation test evaluation method is formed, which solves the problem of verifying the correctness and feasibility of the task planning content, and can systematically evaluate the situation of task planning in achieving task requirements. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0074] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions provided by this application, the following is a brief introduction to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the accompanying drawings described below are only some embodiments of this application.

[0075] Figure 1This is a schematic diagram of the overall process of this application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0076] The following will clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative efforts are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0077] A simulation experiment design and evaluation method for mission planning verification, such as Figure 1 As shown, the following steps are included:

[0078] Step S100: Determine the test objects: determine the test objects to be simulated according to the task scenario, and determine the test elements according to the test objects. The test objects include human-in-the-loop objects and non-human-in-the-loop objects.

[0079] Human-in-the-loop objects use real-time intervention by test personnel and are usually suitable for combat units that need to make on-the-spot decisions and have strong gaming or adaptability (such as aircraft that need to engage in air combat or evade incoming weapons). Non-human-in-the-loop objects do not require real-time intervention by test personnel and only need to set their behavior before the test. During the test, the object will automatically execute according to the pre-set behavior. They are usually suitable for situations with fixed behaviors or action paths and do not require any gaming or adaptability (such as electronic jamming aircraft or early warning aircraft performing fixed-route missions in a safe area without any threats).

[0080] The test elements include setting the model, quantity, basic attributes, mounting information, etc. of the test object to ensure that the test elements of the test object are complete.

[0081] Step S200, defining the initial state: setting an initial state for each test subject participating in the simulation according to the task scenario, that is, the initial state of each test subject at the beginning of the simulation.

[0082] The initial situation includes initial latitude and longitude, initial fuel level, initial speed, initial heading, etc.

[0083] Step S300, clarify the test process: design the test process according to the task scenario and task planning content, and then control the test subject to participate in the test process, conduct test process training, collect test data to determine the prescribed actions of the test subject, until the prescribed actions in the test process can be fully executed and the training is completed.

[0084] Ideally, for human-in-the-loop subjects, participants should be trained in the test process in advance, and prompts should be provided for the required operations during the test process to ensure that participants do not deviate from the test process due to unfamiliarity with the test process. For non-human-in-the-loop subjects, the behavior during the test should be set in advance to ensure that the simulation model executes according to the task plan.

[0085] Task planning requires the test subjects to perform specific task behaviors at different time points / time intervals / space points / space intervals according to the planned content.

[0086] Step S400, establishing an evaluation index system: obtaining feasibility-related indicators and effectiveness-related indicators from the mission planning content, wherein the feasibility-related indicators include the number and related indicators of point constraints and interval constraints; the effectiveness-related indicators include the number and related indicators of communication equipment, sensor equipment, and weapon equipment; calculating the weighted coefficients of each feasibility indicator and effectiveness indicator; establishing an evaluation index system based on feasibility evaluation and effectiveness evaluation; the feasibility evaluation includes point constraint evaluation and interval constraint evaluation; the effectiveness evaluation includes communication equipment effectiveness evaluation, sensor equipment effectiveness evaluation, and weapon equipment effectiveness evaluation;

[0087] Point-constraint assessment primarily evaluates the deviation of combat units from the planned point-to-point actions (e.g., time deviation, horizontal distance deviation, altitude deviation, and speed deviation). This assessment is generally used to evaluate the execution of strongly constrained actions at points such as bomb drop points and formation assembly points, and does not evaluate the execution content before the point-to-point. Interval-constraint assessment, based on point-constraint assessment, assesses the deviation of the execution of the task execution interval between points from the planned requirements (e.g., altitude-time curve, speed-time curve, position-time curve). This assessment is generally used to evaluate task intervals with execution constraints (e.g., the ultra-low-altitude flight penetration phase of an aircraft).

[0088] The effectiveness assessment mainly evaluates the effectiveness of the communications, sensors, and weapons plans in the mission plan and the survival of the combat units. For the communication effectiveness assessment, the main focus is on evaluating the communication effect (whether there are communication delays, packet loss, or bit errors) when the combat units execute the power on and off of communication equipment according to the plan and communicate in the planned frequency band and bandwidth. For the sensor effectiveness assessment, the main focus is on evaluating whether the combat units can achieve stable interception of the target when using sensors according to the planned usage mode and usage parameters. For the weapon effectiveness assessment, the main focus is on evaluating whether the attack loop can be completed after the weapon is released, and the weapon's hit rate and damage rate. The combat unit survival assessment mainly evaluates whether the survival rate of the combat unit during the mission is the same as the mission expectations.

[0089] Step S500: Perform simulation tests according to the test process, obtain simulation result data of each point constraint, interval constraint, communication equipment, sensor equipment, and weapon equipment in the test results, use the simulation result data as the input of feasibility-related indicators and effectiveness-related indicators, and perform feasibility evaluation and effectiveness evaluation in combination with weighted coefficients to obtain specific values of feasibility indicators and effectiveness indicators; further calculate the overall evaluation result of the mission planning based on the specific values of feasibility indicators and effectiveness indicators C ; The overall assessment results of the mission planning C Compare with the standard value of the indicator. If it is greater than or equal to the standard value of the indicator, the task planning is judged to be feasible and effective; the overall evaluation result of the task planning C The calculation method is:

[0090] ;

[0091] in, is the feasibility index weighting coefficient, is the weighted coefficient of effectiveness index, As feasibility indicators, The feasibility index weighting coefficient and the effectiveness index weighting coefficient are calculated by the analytic hierarchy process using the existing different task data.

[0092] Overall evaluation results of mission planning C It is a value between 0 and 1. The closer it is to 1, the higher the feasibility and effectiveness of the task planning. Different indicator standard values are set for different task plans, and the indicator standard values are usually between 0.6 and 0.8.

[0093] When the overall evaluation results of the mission planning C When it is less than the standard value of the indicator, the corresponding task planning is judged to be infeasible.

[0094] Preferably, feasibility indicators Including point constraint index and interval constraint index; feasibility point constraint evaluation obtains point constraint index; interval constraint evaluation obtains interval constraint index; feasibility index is obtained by calculating point constraint index and interval constraint index. The calculation formula is:

[0095] ;

[0096] in, is the number of point constraints in the planning content that need to be evaluated, is the number of interval constraints in the planning content to be evaluated, is the point constraint weight coefficient, is the interval constraint weighting coefficient, which can be calculated and determined according to the hierarchical analysis method. For the Point constraint index, For the The point constraint weight coefficient and interval constraint weight coefficient are calculated by the analytic hierarchy process using the existing different task data.

[0097] Preferably, the point constraint index The calculation method is:

[0098] ;

[0099] in, is the number of test batches that meet the constraint index, is the total number of test batches.

[0100] Preferably, the interval constraint evaluation includes strong interval constraints and weak interval constraints, where strong interval constraints The calculation method is:

[0101] ;

[0102] in, is the number of test batches that meet the constraint index, is the total number of test batches;

[0103] Weak interval constraints The calculation method is:

[0104] ;

[0105] in, For the The percentage of intervals that meet the constraint indicators in the total intervals in the experiment.

[0106] Preferably, the effectiveness indicator Including communication equipment effectiveness indicators, sensor equipment effectiveness indicators and weapon equipment effectiveness indicators; when conducting effectiveness evaluation, it is assumed that Communication equipment, sensor devices, If weapons and equipment of this type are involved in the calculation, the effectiveness index calculation method is:

[0107] ;

[0108] in, For the Weighted coefficient of effectiveness index of each communication equipment; For the Weighted coefficient of effectiveness index of each sensor device; For the Weighted coefficients of weapon equipment effectiveness indicators; is the weighted coefficient of survival effectiveness index, For the Communication equipment effectiveness indicators, For the Sensor device effectiveness indicators, For the Weapon equipment effectiveness indicators, Survival effectiveness indicator.

[0109] Preferably, The calculation method of the effectiveness index of each communication device is:

[0110] ;

[0111] in, 、 、 For the Different weight coefficients of each communication device are determined according to different tasks by using the hierarchical analysis method. For the Communication equipment on / off indicators, For the Communication equipment delay indicators, For the Bit error indicators of communication equipment;

[0112] No. The calculation method of the effectiveness index of each sensor device is:

[0113] ;

[0114] in, 、 For the Different weighting coefficients of sensor devices, The weight coefficients of sensor devices are determined according to different tasks by using the analytic hierarchy process. For the The sensor device detects the distance indicator for the first time, For the The interception time ratio indicator of each sensor device;

[0115] No. The calculation method of the effectiveness index of each weapon equipment is as follows:

[0116] ;

[0117] in, 、 For the Different weight coefficients of weapons and equipment are determined according to different tasks by using the analytic hierarchy process. For the Weapon equipment hit rate indicators, For the A weapon and equipment damage rate indicator.

[0118] Preferably, the communication device on / off indicator The calculation method is:

[0119] ;

[0120] in, For the In the first experiment, The percentage of the time interval during which each communication device can communicate smoothly to the total required communication time interval. is the total number of test batches;

[0121] Communication equipment delay indicators The calculation method is:

[0122] ;

[0123] in, For the In the first experiment, Average communication delay of each communication device; For the In the first experiment, The expected average delay of each communication device during communication planning;

[0124] Communication equipment bit error indicators The calculation method is:

[0125] ;

[0126] in, For the In the first experiment, The percentage of the time interval when the bit error rate of each communication device is lower than the required value to the total communication smooth time interval.

[0127] Preferably, the first detection distance indicator The calculation method is:

[0128] ;

[0129] in, For the In the first experiment, The detection distance when a sensor device first detects a target, For the In the first experiment, The expected first detection distance when planning a sensor device, is the total number of test batches;

[0130] The interception time ratio indicator The calculation method is:

[0131] ;

[0132] in, For the In the first experiment, The percentage of time that a sensor device actually intercepts a target when it is needed to do so. is the total number of test batches.

[0133] Hit rate indicator The calculation method is:

[0134] ;

[0135] in, For the In the first test The number of times such weapons and equipment hit the target, For the In the first test The number of times such weapons and equipment were launched, is the total number of test batches;

[0136] Damage rate index The calculation method is:

[0137] ;

[0138] in, For the In the first test, The number of targets destroyed by this type of weapons and equipment, For the In the first test The number of times such weapons and equipment hit the target;

[0139] Survival effectiveness index The calculation method is:

[0140] ;

[0141] in, For the The number of combat units that survived the test, For the The number of combat units deployed in the test.

[0142] Preferably, the communication equipment effectiveness weighted coefficient, the sensor equipment effectiveness weighted coefficient and the weapon equipment effectiveness weighted coefficient are all calculated by the hierarchical analysis method.

[0143] To summarize, this application determines the test objects participating in the simulation based on the task scenario, determines the initial situation and test process, and then evaluates the test data in the simulation test by establishing an evaluation index system. The effectiveness and feasibility of the task planning content are verified by calculating the result value. The advantages and disadvantages of different task planning contents under the same task can also be compared through the calculation results. A general simulation test evaluation method is formed, which solves the problem of verifying the correctness and feasibility of the task planning content, and can systematically evaluate the situation of task planning to achieve task requirements.

[0144] Finally, it should be noted that the drawings of the embodiments disclosed in the present invention only involve structures related to the embodiments disclosed in the present invention. Other structures can refer to common designs. In the absence of conflicts, the same embodiment and different embodiments of the present invention can be combined with each other.

[0145] Finally: The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc. made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included in the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A simulation test design and evaluation method for mission planning verification, characterized by: include: Determine the test subjects participating in the simulation based on the mission scenario. The test subjects include human-in-the-loop subjects and non-human-in-the-loop subjects. According to the task scenario, the initial state is set for the test subjects, that is, the initial state of each test subject at the beginning of the simulation; Design the test process based on the mission scenario and mission planning content, then control the test subjects to participate in the test process, conduct test process training, collect test data to determine the test subjects' prescribed actions, until they can fully perform the prescribed actions in the test process and complete the training; Obtain feasibility-related indicators and effectiveness-related indicators in the mission planning content. Feasibility-related indicators include the number and related indicators of point constraints and interval constraints; effectiveness-related indicators include the number and related indicators of communication equipment, sensor equipment, and weapon equipment; calculate the weighted coefficients of each credibility data and effectiveness data; establish an evaluation indicator system based on feasibility evaluation and effectiveness evaluation based on feasibility-related indicators and effectiveness-related indicators; feasibility evaluation includes point constraint evaluation and interval constraint evaluation; effectiveness evaluation includes communication equipment effectiveness evaluation, sensor equipment effectiveness evaluation, and weapon equipment effectiveness evaluation; Conduct simulation tests according to the test process, obtain simulation result data of each point constraint, interval constraint, communication equipment, sensor equipment and weapon equipment in the test results, use the simulation result data as the input of feasibility-related indicators and effectiveness-related indicators, combine the weighting coefficients to conduct feasibility assessment and effectiveness assessment, and obtain the specific values of feasibility indicators and effectiveness indicators; further calculate the overall evaluation results of the mission planning based on the specific values of feasibility indicators and effectiveness indicators C ; The overall assessment results of the mission planning C Compare with the standard value of the indicator. If it is greater than or equal to the standard value of the indicator, the task planning is judged to be feasible and effective; the overall evaluation result of the task planning C The calculation method is: ； in, is the feasibility index weighting coefficient, is the weighted coefficient of effectiveness index, As feasibility indicators, is an effectiveness indicator.

2. The simulation test design and evaluation method for cross-country mission planning verification according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The feasibility indicators Including point constraint index and interval constraint index; point constraint evaluation obtains point constraint index; interval constraint evaluation obtains interval constraint index; feasibility index is obtained by calculating point constraint index and interval constraint index. The calculation formula is: ； in, is the number of point constraints in the planning content that need to be evaluated, is the number of interval constraints in the planning content to be evaluated, is the point constraint weight coefficient, is the interval constraint weighting coefficient, which can be calculated and determined according to the hierarchical analysis method; For the Point constraint index, For the An interval constraint indicator.

3. The simulation test design and evaluation method for task planning verification according to claim 2 is characterized in that: The point constraint index The calculation method is: ； in, is the number of test batches that meet the constraint index, is the total number of test batches.

4. The simulation test design and evaluation method for task planning verification according to claim 2 is characterized in that: The interval constraint evaluation includes strong interval constraints and weak interval constraints. The calculation method is: ； in, is the number of test batches that meet the constraint index, is the total number of test batches; The weak interval constraint The calculation method is: ； in, For the The percentage of intervals that meet the constraint indicators in the total intervals in the experiment.

5. The simulation test design and evaluation method for cross-mission task planning verification according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The effectiveness indicators Including communication equipment effectiveness indicators, sensor equipment effectiveness indicators and weapon equipment effectiveness indicators; when conducting effectiveness evaluation, it is assumed that Communication equipment, sensor devices, If weapons and equipment of this type are involved in the calculation, the effectiveness index calculation method is: ； in, For the Weighted coefficient of effectiveness index of each communication equipment; For the Weighted coefficient of effectiveness index of each sensor device; For the Weighted coefficients of weapon equipment effectiveness indicators; is the weighted coefficient of survival effectiveness index, For the Communication equipment effectiveness indicators, For the Sensor device effectiveness indicators, For the Weapon equipment effectiveness indicators, Survival effectiveness indicator.

6. The simulation test design and evaluation method for cross-mission task planning verification according to claim 5, characterized in that: The said The calculation method of the effectiveness index of each communication device is: ； in, 、 、 For the Different weight coefficients of each communication device are determined according to different tasks by using the hierarchical analysis method. For the Communication equipment on / off indicators, For the Communication equipment delay indicators, For the Bit error indicators of communication equipment; The said The calculation method of the effectiveness index of each sensor device is: ； in, 、 For the Different weight coefficients of sensor devices are determined according to different tasks by using the hierarchical analysis method. For the The first detection distance indicator of each sensor device, For the The interception time ratio indicator of each sensor device; The said The calculation method of the effectiveness index of each weapon equipment is as follows: ； in, 、 For the Different weight coefficients of weapons and equipment are determined according to different tasks by using the analytic hierarchy process. For the Hit rate indicators of weapons and equipment, For the The damage rate indicator of each weapon and equipment.

7. The simulation test design and evaluation method for cross-mission task planning verification according to claim 6, characterized in that: The communication equipment on-off indicator The calculation method is: ； in, For the In the first experiment, The percentage of the time interval during which each communication device can communicate smoothly to the total required communication time interval. is the total number of test batches; The communication equipment delay indicator The calculation method is: ； in, For the In the first experiment, Average communication delay of each communication device; For the In the first experiment, The expected average delay of each communication device during communication planning; The communication equipment error indicator The calculation method is: ； in, For the In the first experiment, The percentage of the time interval when the bit error rate of each communication device is lower than the required value to the total communication smooth time interval.

8. The simulation test design and evaluation method for task planning verification according to claim 6 is characterized in that: The first detection distance indicator The calculation method is: ； in, For the In the first experiment, The detection distance when a sensor device first detects a target, For the In the first experiment, The expected first detection distance when planning a sensor device, is the total number of test batches; The interception time ratio indicator The calculation method is: ； in, For the In the first experiment, The percentage of time that a sensor device actually intercepts a target when it is needed to do so. is the total number of test batches.

9. The simulation test design and evaluation method for cross-mission task planning verification according to claim 6, characterized in that: The hit rate indicator The calculation method is: ； in, For the In the first test The number of times such weapons and equipment hit the target, For the In the first test The number of times such weapons and equipment were launched, is the total number of test batches; The damage rate index The calculation method is: ； in, For the In the first test, The number of targets destroyed by this type of weapons and equipment, For the In the first test The number of times such weapons and equipment hit the target; The survival effectiveness index The calculation method is: ； in, For the The number of combat units that survived the test, For the The number of combat units deployed in the test.

10. The simulation test design and evaluation method for cross-mission task planning verification according to claim 6, characterized in that: The communication equipment effectiveness weighted coefficient, the sensor equipment effectiveness weighted coefficient and the weapon equipment effectiveness weighted coefficient are all calculated and obtained through the hierarchical analysis method.

Images