Air combat system element structure emergence quantitative evaluation method based on core combat capability analysis

Abstract

The invention provides an air combat system element structure emergencies quantitative evaluation method based on core combat ability analysis, and relates to the technical field of air combat system combat ability evaluation.The method comprises the steps that 1, an air combat system task-level and system-level core combat ability index system is constructed from the perspective of key combat problems and combat requirements; step 2, carrying out emergence evaluation on the task-level core combat capability and the system-level core combat capability of the air combat system from two aspects of capability item variation and capability index variation; and step 3, integrating system task-level core combat capability and system-level core combat capability emergencies evaluation results to obtain an air combat system combat capability emergencies evaluation conclusion. The method is suitable for evaluating the combat ability emergencies of new elements and new structure conditions in a fixed-scale combat system of a typical opponent in a typical environment, and a user is guided to evaluate the combat ability emergencies in a specific task scene.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of air combat system combat capability assessment, and in particular to a method for quantitatively assessing the emergence of element structures of an air combat system based on core combat capability analysis. Background Art

[0002] With the gradual popularization of equipment informatization, the winning mechanism of air combat has gradually shifted from energy mobility to information advantage. The characteristics of mutual influence and interaction between the subjects of the air combat system have become increasingly obvious. Through the organic coupling of self-organization mechanism and behavior regulation mechanism, the subjects often show the phenomenon of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts", resulting in a nonlinear trend of combat capability changes and the characteristics of capability emergence.

[0003] Emergence refers to the level of new capabilities that system elements, through interaction and collaboration, generate when operating independently, and the degree to which improvements and upgrades to system elements, structure, and scale impact the capabilities of the entire equipment system. Emergence assessment evaluates the difference between the overall system capability and the sum of the capabilities of its elements, as well as the contribution of improvements and upgrades to different equipment elements, structures, and scales to changes in system capability. In recent years, the emergence of equipment system combat capabilities has garnered increasing attention. Theoretical research on the emergence of combat capability assessment has gradually matured, but a clear assessment metric has yet to be established. Emergence assessment methods are essentially experimental, resulting from the conclusions of overall experiments and cannot be deduced or predicted by observing the behavior of individual components. Without a practical and operational assessment method, comprehensive and specific analysis of the emergent characteristics of complex combat systems is hindered. Therefore, research on relevant methods is necessary. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The present invention is mainly used to solve the problem of quantitative evaluation of the emergent structure of air combat system elements.

[0005] To this end, the present invention provides the following technical solution: a quantitative evaluation method for the emergent structure of air combat system elements based on core combat capability analysis, comprising:

[0006] Step 1: Build a core combat capability indicator system at the mission and system levels for the air combat system based on key combat issues and combat requirements;

[0007] Step 2: Conduct emergent assessments of the mission-level core combat capability and system-level core combat capability of the air combat system from the perspectives of changes in capability items and capability indicators;

[0008] Step 3: Integrate the emergent assessment results of the system mission-level core combat capability and the system-level core combat capability to draw the emergent assessment conclusion of the air combat system combat capability.

[0009] Furthermore, in step 1, the mission-level core combat capability indicator system includes: overall mission completion capability, sub-task completion capability, air combat system combat performance, and combat cost; its construction is specifically as follows:

[0010] Step 1.11, based on the combat missions undertaken by the entire combat system, determine the completion capability based on the mission objectives and mission success criteria, measure the combat capability based on the total mission completion rate, and construct the total mission completion capability index of the air combat system;

[0011]

[0012] Step 1.12, based on the basic combat tasks undertaken by each subtask formation in the air combat system, determine the completion capability according to the mission objectives and mission success criteria, measure the combat capability by the subtask completion degree, and construct the air combat system subtask completion capability index; among which,

[0013]

[0014] Step 1.13: The specific combat performance of the air combat system in the process of executing the corresponding combat mission, measured by the enemy destruction rate and mission completion time, is used as the combat performance indicator of the air combat system;

[0015]

[0016] Step 1.14: The cost incurred by the air combat system in executing the corresponding combat mission, measured by combat loss rate and combat economy, is used as the combat cost indicator of the air combat system;

[0017]

[0018] Among them, ω i is the economic value weight of each air combat element, and the total economic weight of the air combat system is 1;

[0019]

[0020] Furthermore, in step 1, the system-level core combat capability indicator system includes: lethality, survivability, and system support capability indicators; its construction is specifically as follows:

[0021] Step 1.21: Construct a lethality indicator to measure the combat system's ability to effectively kill mission targets in a combat environment, using combat radius, radar air-to-air detection range, electronic warfare warning range, and fire control solution accuracy.

[0022] Step 1.22: Construct survivability indicators to measure the combat system's ability to effectively survive in the combat environment and successfully complete the mission, using target radar detection time, electronic warfare warning time, and maneuver evasion success rate as a measure.

[0023] Step 1.23: Construct system support capability indicators that represent the ability of the combat system to integrate into the joint combat system and the degree of its impact on the joint combat capability, using indicators of changes in the combat effectiveness and efficiency of the joint combat system.

[0024] Furthermore, step 2 specifically includes the following steps:

[0025] Step 2.1, Capability Change: When the elements and structure of the air combat system change, and the air combat system has a certain mission execution capability that the original combat system and the single-element mission execution capability do not have, then it is considered that the element and structure changes have triggered the emergence of the air combat system's mission-level core combat capability;

[0026] Step 2.2, Significantly Changed Capabilities: Only if the Task Completion Capability has not changed significantly, then consider the other subordinate capabilities in a hierarchical manner. As long as the Task Completion Capability has significantly improved / decreased, then the other subordinate capabilities do not need to be evaluated.

[0027] In step 2.3, if the overall mission completion capability, sub-task completion capability, combat performance, and combat cost of the air combat system do not change significantly, and there is no increase / decrease in mission-level core combat capability items, then at this stage it is considered that the changes in elements and structure have not triggered the emergence of mission-level core combat capabilities of the air combat system.

[0028] Furthermore, step 2.1 is specifically as follows:

[0029] Step 2.11: After the elements and structure change, the air combat system's lethality, survivability, and system support capabilities change. If the air combat system possesses a certain combat capability that the original combat system and single-element combat capabilities did not possess, then the element and structure changes are considered to have triggered the emergence of the air combat system's system-level core combat capability.

[0030] Step 2.12: Determine whether there is emergence by comparing the differences in lethality, survivability, and system support capability indicators between the new and old air combat systems:

[0031] If the following formula is satisfied, the system-level combat capability will show an increasing trend:

[0032]

[0033] If the following formula is met, the system-level combat capability will show a downward trend:

[0034]

[0035] Among them, C prior，i is the i-th system-level combat capability of the original air combat system, C present，iTo realize the i-th system-level combat capability of the air combat system, ω ji is the weight value of the emergent change of the i-th system-level combat capability improvement, ω ki Reduce the weight of emergent change for the i-th system-level combat capability, G ai To improve the emergence judgment threshold of the i-th system-level combat capability, G bi Lowering the emergence threshold for the i-th system-level combat capability;

[0036] Step 2.13: If the system-level combat capabilities of the air combat system have not changed significantly, and there are no new additions / reductions in the system-level core combat capabilities, then at this stage it is considered that the changes in elements and structure have not triggered the emergence of the system-level core combat capabilities of the air combat system.

[0037] Furthermore, step 2.2 is specifically as follows:

[0038] Step 2.21: Compare the total mission completion of the air combat system from one generation to the next, using the three-part criterion for evaluating mission completion. If mission results significantly improve or significantly decrease, it is considered that changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of mission-level core combat capabilities of the air combat system.

[0039] Step 2.22: When the overall mission success capability has not changed significantly, compare the success of the subtasks of the mission according to the three-part criterion for evaluating mission completion. If the subtask success capability has changed significantly, then the changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of the mission-level core combat capability of the air combat system.

[0040] Step 2.23: Under the assumption that neither the overall mission completion capability nor the sub-task completion capability of the air combat system has changed significantly, compare the system kill rate and mission completion efficiency of the air combat system at different stages according to the three-part criterion for evaluating the combat performance of the air combat system. If there is a significant change in the two conclusions, it is considered that the changes in the elements and structure have led to the emergence of the mission-level core combat capability of the air combat system.

[0041] Step 2.24: When the overall mission completion capability, sub-task completion capability, and combat performance of the air combat system have not changed significantly, compare the combat loss rate and combat economy of the air combat system in successive operations according to the three-part criterion for evaluating the combat cost of the air combat system. If there is a significant change in the conclusions of the two, it is considered that the changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of the mission-level core combat capability of the air combat system.

[0042] Furthermore, in steps 2.21 and 2.22, the three-tiered criteria for task completion are: loss, draw, and win; a significant improvement in task results is from loss → draw, draw → win, and loss → win; a significant decrease in task results is from win → draw, draw → loss, and win → loss.

[0043] Furthermore, the three-differentiation criteria for the combat performance of the air combat system in step 2.23 and the three-differentiation criteria for the combat cost of the air combat system in step 2.24 are both: high, medium, and low. A significant improvement is from low → medium, medium → high, and low → high, or a significant decrease in the enemy annihilation rate is from high → medium, medium → low, and high → low.

[0044] Furthermore, step 3 is specifically as follows: if any of the core combat capability items and indicators at the mission level and system level of the air combat system undergo significant changes, it can be determined that the changes in elements and structures have triggered the emergence of the combat capability of the air combat system; if neither the core combat capability items and indicators at the mission level and system level of the air combat system undergo changes, it can be determined that the changes in elements and structures have not triggered the emergence of the combat capability of the air combat system.

[0045] The present invention is mainly used to solve the problem of quantitative evaluation of the emergence of the element structure of the air combat system. Compared with previous studies on emergent evaluation methods, the present invention focuses on the core combat tasks of the air combat system. Starting from the overall combat capability of the air combat system, the relationship between its element structure and task completion is analyzed. Based on the emergence of the overall task completion capability, the new combat capability of the system or the significant change in combat capability is evaluated, so as to better grasp the relationship between mutual promotion or mutual inhibition between the combat subjects of the system.

[0046] This method, based on the overall operational capability of an air combat system, prioritizes its core operational capabilities and comprehensively considers the relationship between its elements, structure, and mission accomplishment. This method is applicable to the emergent assessment of operational capability under new elements and structural conditions within a fixed-scale combat system operating against typical adversaries in typical environments. It guides users in conducting emergent assessments of operational capability within specific mission scenarios. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0047] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the specific embodiments of the present invention, the following is a brief introduction to the drawings required for use in the description of the specific embodiments. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying any creative work.

[0048] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the overall process of the method for quantitatively evaluating the emergence of air combat system element structures based on core combat capability analysis of the present invention;

[0049] Figure 2 This is a flowchart of a method for quantitatively evaluating the emergence of air combat system element structures based on core combat capability analysis according to an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0050] 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. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without making any creative efforts shall fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0051] like Figure 1 As shown, the method for quantitatively evaluating the emergence of air combat system element structures based on core combat capability analysis of the present invention includes the following steps:

[0052] Step A: Based on key operational issues and operational requirements, construct a core operational capability indicator system for the air combat system at the mission and system levels;

[0053] Step B: Conduct emergent assessments of the mission-level core combat capabilities and system-level core combat capabilities of the air combat system from the perspectives of changes in capability items and capability indicators;

[0054] Step C: Integrate the emergent assessment results of the system mission-level core combat capability and the system-level core combat capability to draw a comprehensive conclusion on the emergent assessment of the air combat system combat capability.

[0055] Due to the complexity and obvious hierarchy of the air combat system, its capability index system presents a multi-level structure. Usually, a single capability index is supported by multiple local indicators to provide the necessary information for overall effectiveness calculation or effectiveness analysis. Local indicators can also be decomposed layer by layer until they are quite specific and intuitive. They can be directly or indirectly represented by the technical and tactical performance, combat performance, data system combat effect counting statistics, and qualitative evaluation of each element. Figure 2 The quantitative evaluation method for the emergence of air combat system element structure based on core combat capability analysis of the present invention is further explained.

[0056] The mission-level core combat capability indicator system for the air combat system described in Step A evaluates and measures the air combat system's ability to complete specified tasks in a combat environment. Its core is overall mission completion capability, followed by subtask completion capability, and then combat performance and mission cost. The process of constructing the mission-level core combat capability indicator system primarily includes the following steps:

[0057] Step A1-1: The overall mission completion capability of the air combat system is based on the combat mission undertaken by the entire combat system, and is mainly determined based on the mission objectives and mission success standards. Compared with the sub-task completion capability, the overall mission completion capability assessment is more macroscopic, and is often supported by outcome data such as the overall mission completion rate.

[0058]

[0059] Step A1-2: The air combat system subtask completion capability is based on the basic combat missions undertaken by each subtask group in the air combat system. The completion capability is also determined based on the mission objectives and mission success standards undertaken, and is often supported by result data such as subtask completion.

[0060]

[0061] Step A1-3: The combat performance of the air combat system is based on the specific combat performance of the air combat system in the process of executing the corresponding combat mission. It is mainly used to measure the quality of the air combat system's mission execution, and is often supported by data such as enemy kill rate and mission completion time.

[0062]

[0063] Step A1-4: The combat cost of the air combat system is the cost paid by the air combat system in the process of executing the corresponding combat mission. It is mainly used to measure the cost of the air combat system mission execution, and is often supported by data such as combat loss rate and combat economy.

[0064]

[0065] in,

[0066]

[0067] ω i The economic value weight of each air combat element is represented by the economic value of the element. The higher the economic value of the element, the greater the weight. The total economic weight of the air combat system sums to 1. Operational economic efficiency is primarily determined by the relationship between the total value of our deployed forces and the total value of our lost forces. A higher value for operational economic efficiency indicates poorer operational economic efficiency and higher economic costs.

[0068] The system-level core combat capability indicator system for the air combat system described in Step A evaluates and measures the ability of each element of the air combat system to support the completion of combat missions, reflecting the factors influencing and judgment criteria for operational objectives. The establishment of system-level evaluation indicators should follow the principle of decomposition from "combat mission - mission process - capability performance - system capability." Starting from the combat process, the various links in the combat mission process should be analyzed, as well as the relationship between the performance of each element in these links and the capabilities of each element.

[0069] The process of building a system of core combat capability indicators at the system level mainly includes the following steps:

[0070] Step A2-1: Lethality refers to the combat system's ability to kill threatening opponents. Its core is whether the combat system can effectively kill mission targets in a combat environment. It usually includes deployment capability, target situation information acquisition capability, target fire control information acquisition capability, target identification capability, firepower hard kill capability, electronic soft kill capability, penetration capability, etc. It can be decomposed layer by layer into supporting indicators such as flight capability, RF active detection capability, RF passive detection capability, and air-to-air long-range attack capability, and is comprehensively represented by underlying performance data such as combat radius, radar air-to-air detection range, electronic warfare warning range, and fire control solution accuracy.

[0071] Step A2-2: Survivability refers to the ability of weapons and equipment to defend against enemy casualties and threats. Its core is whether the combat system can effectively survive in the combat environment and successfully complete the mission. It usually includes threat identification capability, interference countermeasure capability, threat defense capability, etc. It can be broken down into supporting indicators such as self-defense interference capability, threat perception capability, and avoidance capability, and is comprehensively represented by underlying performance data such as target radar detection time, electronic warfare warning time, and maneuver avoidance success rate.

[0072] Step A2-3: System support capability refers to the degree of integration between the combat system and the joint combat system, and supports the joint combat system's performance and capability realization. Its core is the combat system's ability to integrate into the joint combat system and the degree of its impact on the joint combat capability. It usually includes system command information transmission, system situational information support, system fire control information support, system firepower support, system interference support, system endurance support and other capabilities, and can be represented by changes in the combat effectiveness and efficiency of the joint combat system.

[0073] The emergence assessment of the air combat system's mission-level core combat capability from the perspectives of changes in capability items and capability indicators, as described in step B, refers to the reassessment of its mission-level core combat capability according to the mission-level core combat capability indicator system after changes in the elements and structure of the air combat system, and the resulting results are comprehensively assessed with the original system's combat capability. The emergence assessment of the air combat system's mission-level core combat capability mainly includes the following steps:

[0074] Step B1-1: The change in capability items. The core consideration is the mission execution capability of the air combat system. If the air combat system has a certain mission execution capability after the elements and structure of the air combat system change, and this capability is not possessed by the original combat system and single-element mission execution capability, then it is considered that the change in elements and structure has triggered the emergence of the mission-level core combat capability of the air combat system.

[0075] Step B1-2: Significantly Changed Capabilities. The core consideration is changes in mission accomplishment capability. Only when mission accomplishment capability remains unchanged should other subordinate capabilities, such as combat performance and combat costs, be considered in a layered, tiered manner. As long as mission accomplishment capability significantly improves or decreases, other subordinate capabilities do not need to be evaluated.

[0076] Step B1-2-1: For the task completion capability assessment, the first step is to assess the changes in the overall task completion rate. According to the three-part differentiation criterion, the conclusions are divided into three categories: (0-0.4) for loss, (0.4-0.6) for draw, and (0.6-1) for win. By comparing the overall mission completion conclusions of the air combat system, if there is a change between the two conclusions, such as a significant improvement in the mission results (the conclusion changes from loss to draw, draw to win, loss to win), or a significant decrease in the mission results (the conclusion changes from win to draw, draw to loss, win to loss), it is considered that the change in elements and structure has led to the emergence of the mission-level core combat capability of the air combat system;

[0077] Step B1-2-2: If the overall mission capability of the air combat system remains unchanged, the focus will be on evaluating the success capabilities of each of the system's subtasks. The assessment method and criteria remain the same as above. If the overall mission capability remains unchanged, but the subtask capability does change significantly, it is also considered that changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of the air combat system's mission-level core combat capability.

[0078] Step B1-2-3: If the overall mission completion capability and each sub-task completion capability of the air combat system have not changed significantly, it is necessary to focus on evaluating the combat performance of the air combat system. The enemy kill rate D and mission completion efficiency S are also divided into three conclusions according to the three-division criterion: (0-0.4) is high, (0.4-0.6) is medium, and [0.6-1) is low. By comparing the air combat system's successive system enemy kill rates and mission completion efficiencies, if the two conclusions change, such as the enemy kill rate significantly improving (conclusions from low to medium, medium to high, low to high), or the enemy kill rate significantly decreasing (conclusions from high to medium, medium to low, high to low), it is considered that the changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of the core combat capability of the air combat system at the mission level;

[0079] Step B1-2-4: If the air combat system's overall mission completion capability, sub-task completion capability, and combat performance have not changed significantly, it is necessary to focus on evaluating the air combat system's combat cost. The combat loss rate Z and combat economy A are also divided into three conclusions according to the three-part differentiation criterion: (0-0.4) for high, (0.4-0.6) for medium, and (0.6-1) for low. By comparing the combat loss rate and combat economy of the air combat system in successive operations, if the two conclusions change, such as a significant increase in the combat loss rate (conclusion from low to medium, medium to high, low to high), or a significant decrease in the combat loss rate (conclusion from high to medium, medium to low, high to low), it is considered that the changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of the air combat system's mission-level core combat capability.

[0080] Step B1-3: If the air combat system's overall mission completion capability, each sub-task completion capability, combat performance, and combat cost have not changed significantly, and there are no new additions / subtractions in mission-level core combat capability items, then at this stage, it is considered that changes in elements and structure have not triggered the emergence of mission-level core combat capabilities of the air combat system.

[0081] The emergence assessment of the core combat capability of the air combat system at the system level, described in step B, from the perspectives of changes in capability items and capability indicators, refers to the reassessment of its collaborative core combat capability according to the system-level core combat capability indicator system after changes in the elements and structure of the air combat system, and the corresponding results are obtained through a comprehensive assessment of the original system combat capability. The emergence assessment of the core combat capability of the air combat system at the system level mainly includes the following steps:

[0082] Step B2-1: Changes in capability items. After changes in elements and structures, the lethality, survivability, system support capability, or other system-level combat capabilities of the air combat system change. The air combat system possesses a certain combat capability that the original combat system and single-element combat capability do not possess. In this case, the changes in elements and structures are considered to have triggered the emergence of the core combat capability of the system-level air combat system.

[0083] Step B2-2: Significant change capability. The core consideration is the change in the air combat system's lethality, survivability, system support capability, or other system-level combat capabilities. The significant change capability to be evaluated must be possessed by both the old and new air combat systems. By comparing the differences in relevant capability indicators, we can determine whether there is emergence. Assume that the original air combat system contains m system-level combat capabilities C prior，i (i=1, ..., m), represents the i-th system-level combat capability of the original air combat system, and the corresponding current air combat system contains n system-level combat capabilities C present，i(i=1, ..., n) represents the system-level combat capability of the current air combat system. ω is the combat capability change weight, which defaults to 1. Expert assignment can be used to confirm the difficulty of the capability change to make the result more accurate. In specific applications, the assignment of ω should first determine the capability change trend and set the weight ω of the system-level combat capability improvement change of the i-th item according to the trend. ji 、The i-th system-level combat capability is reduced and the weight value of the emergent change is reduced ω ki , different weight values are used for different change trends.

[0084] Scenario 1: System-level combat capability is increasing if:

[0085]

[0086] It is believed that the system-level combat capability of the air combat system has been significantly improved, and the changes in elements and structures have led to the emergence of the core combat capability of the air combat system. a The emergence judgment threshold for the i-th system-level combat capability enhancement is determined based on the cluster’s combat mission and expected effectiveness, and a typical value is 10.

[0087] Scenario 2: The system-level combat capability is declining if:

[0088]

[0089] It is believed that the system-level combat capability of the air combat system has declined significantly, and the changes in elements and structures have triggered the emergence of the core combat capability of the air combat system. b The emergence determination threshold for the i-th system-level combat capability is lowered and determined based on the combat mission and expected effectiveness of the cluster. The typical value can be 0.1.

[0090] Step B2-3: If the system-level combat capabilities contained in the air combat system have not changed significantly, and there are no new additions / reductions in system-level core combat capabilities, then at this stage it is believed that the changes in elements and structure have not triggered the emergence of system-level core combat capabilities of the air combat system.

[0091] The final conclusion of the emergence assessment of the air combat system's combat capability, described in step C, is drawn based on the corresponding criteria, integrating the system's mission-level core combat capability and system-level core combat capability emergence assessment results. If any of the air combat system's mission-level and system-level core combat capability items and indicators undergo significant changes, it can be determined that the changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of the air combat system's combat capability. If neither the air combat system's mission-level nor system-level combat capability items and indicators undergo changes, it can be determined that the changes in elements and structure have not triggered the emergence of the air combat system's combat capability.

[0092] From the above introduction, it can be seen that the present invention proposes a method for evaluating the emergence of combat capabilities under new elements and new structural conditions of a fixed-scale combat system in a typical environment against typical opponents. By fixing the variable factors of the air combat confrontation system, the equipment system test result data is compared and evaluated, which avoids the shortcomings of strong subjectivity, complex model calculation, and poor operability to the greatest extent, and obtains a more scientific and objective evaluation conclusion, while laying a good foundation for subsequent research on the emergence of system variables.

[0093] Please note that the various technical features of the above embodiments can be combined arbitrarily. In order to make the description concise, not all possible combinations of the various technical features in the above embodiments are described. However, as long as there is no contradiction in the combination of these technical features, they should be considered to be within the scope of this specification. The above embodiments only express several implementation methods of the present application, and their descriptions are relatively specific and detailed, but they cannot be understood as limiting the scope of the invention patent. It should be pointed out that for those skilled in the art, without departing from the concept of the present application, several variations and improvements can be made, which all fall within the scope of protection of the present application. Therefore, the scope of protection of the patent in this application shall be based on the attached claims.

Claims

1. A quantitative assessment method for the emergence of air combat system element structure based on core combat capability analysis, characterized by: The method includes: Step 1: Build a core combat capability indicator system at the mission and system levels for the air combat system based on key combat issues and combat requirements; Step 2: Conduct emergent assessments of the mission-level core combat capability and system-level core combat capability of the air combat system from the perspectives of changes in capability items and capability indicators; Step 3: Integrate the emergent assessment results of the system mission-level core combat capability and the system-level core combat capability to draw the emergent assessment conclusion of the air combat system combat capability.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein In step 1, the mission-level core combat capability indicator system includes: overall mission completion capability, sub-task completion capability, air combat system combat performance, and combat cost; its construction is specifically as follows: Step 1.11, based on the combat missions undertaken by the entire combat system, determine the completion capability based on the mission objectives and mission success criteria, measure the combat capability based on the total mission completion rate, and construct the total mission completion capability index of the air combat system; Step 1.12, based on the basic combat tasks undertaken by each subtask formation in the air combat system, determine the completion capability according to the mission objectives and mission success criteria, measure the combat capability by the subtask completion degree, and construct the air combat system subtask completion capability index; among which, Step 1.13: The specific combat performance of the air combat system in the process of executing the corresponding combat mission, measured by the enemy destruction rate and mission completion time, is used as the combat performance indicator of the air combat system; Step 1.14: The cost incurred by the air combat system in executing the corresponding combat mission, measured by combat loss rate and combat economy, is used as the combat cost indicator of the air combat system; Among them, ω i is the economic value weight of each air combat element, and the total economic weight of the air combat system is 1; 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein In step 1, the system-level core combat capability indicator system includes: lethality, survivability, and system support capability indicators; its construction is specifically as follows: Step 1.21: Construct a lethality indicator to measure the combat system's ability to effectively kill mission targets in a combat environment, using combat radius, radar air-to-air detection range, electronic warfare warning range, and fire control solution accuracy. Step 1.22: Construct survivability indicators to measure the combat system's ability to effectively survive in the combat environment and successfully complete the mission, using target radar detection time, electronic warfare warning time, and maneuver evasion success rate as a measure. Step 1.23: Construct system support capability indicators that represent the ability of the combat system to integrate into the joint combat system and the degree of its impact on the joint combat capability, using indicators of changes in the combat effectiveness and efficiency of the joint combat system.

4. The method according to claim 2 or 3, wherein: Step 2 specifically includes the following steps: Step 2.1, Capability Change: When the elements and structure of the air combat system change, and the air combat system has a certain mission execution capability that the original combat system and the single-element mission execution capability do not have, then it is considered that the element and structure changes have triggered the emergence of the air combat system's mission-level core combat capability; Step 2.2, Significantly Changed Capabilities: Only if the Task Completion Capability has not changed significantly, then consider the other subordinate capabilities in a hierarchical manner. As long as the Task Completion Capability has significantly improved / decreased, then the other subordinate capabilities do not need to be evaluated. In step 2.3, if the overall mission completion capability, sub-task completion capability, combat performance, and combat cost of the air combat system do not change significantly, and there is no increase / decrease in mission-level core combat capability items, then at this stage it is considered that the changes in elements and structure have not triggered the emergence of mission-level core combat capabilities of the air combat system.

5. The method according to claim 4, wherein Step 2.1 is as follows: Step 2.11: After the elements and structure change, the air combat system's lethality, survivability, and system support capabilities change. If the air combat system possesses a certain combat capability that the original combat system and single-element combat capabilities did not possess, then the element and structure changes are considered to have triggered the emergence of the air combat system's system-level core combat capability. Step 2.12: Determine whether there is emergence by comparing the differences in lethality, survivability, and system support capability indicators between the new and old air combat systems: If the following formula is satisfied, the system-level combat capability will show an increasing trend: If the following formula is met, the system-level combat capability will show a downward trend: Among them, C prior，i is the i-th system-level combat capability of the original air combat system, C present，i To realize the i-th system-level combat capability of the air combat system, ω ji is the weight value of the emergent change of the i-th system-level combat capability improvement, ω ki Reduce the weight of emergent change for the i-th system-level combat capability, G ai To improve the emergence judgment threshold of the i-th system-level combat capability, G bi Lowering the emergence threshold for the i-th system-level combat capability; Step 2.13: If the system-level combat capabilities of the air combat system have not changed significantly, and there are no new additions / reductions in the system-level core combat capabilities, then at this stage it is considered that the changes in elements and structure have not triggered the emergence of the system-level core combat capabilities of the air combat system.

6. The method according to claim 4, wherein Step 2.2 is as follows: Step 2.21: Compare the total mission completion of the air combat system from one generation to the next, using the three-part criterion for evaluating mission completion. If mission results significantly improve or significantly decrease, it is considered that changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of mission-level core combat capabilities of the air combat system. Step 2.22: When the overall mission success capability has not changed significantly, compare the success of the subtasks of the mission according to the three-part criterion for evaluating mission completion. If the subtask success capability has changed significantly, then the changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of the mission-level core combat capability of the air combat system. Step 2.23: Under the assumption that neither the overall mission completion capability nor the sub-task completion capability of the air combat system has changed significantly, compare the system kill rate and mission completion efficiency of the air combat system at different stages according to the three-part criterion for evaluating the combat performance of the air combat system. If there is a significant change in the two conclusions, it is considered that the changes in the elements and structure have led to the emergence of the mission-level core combat capability of the air combat system. Step 2.24: When the overall mission completion capability, sub-task completion capability, and combat performance of the air combat system have not changed significantly, compare the combat loss rate and combat economy of the air combat system in successive operations according to the three-part criterion for evaluating the combat cost of the air combat system. If there is a significant change in the conclusions of the two, it is considered that the changes in elements and structure have triggered the emergence of the mission-level core combat capability of the air combat system.

7. The method according to claim 6, wherein In steps 2.21 and 2.22, the three-tiered criteria for task completion are: loss, draw, and win; a significant improvement in task results is from loss → draw, draw → win, and loss → win; a significant decrease in task results is from win → draw, draw → loss, and win → loss.

8. The method according to claim 6, wherein The three-part differentiation criteria for the air combat system's combat performance in step 2.23 and the three-part differentiation criteria for the air combat system's combat cost in step 2.24 are both: high, medium, and low. A significant improvement is from low to medium, medium to high, and low to high, or a significant decrease in the enemy annihilation rate is from high to medium, medium to low, and high to low.

9. The method according to claim 1, wherein Step 3 is as follows: If any of the core combat capability items and indicators at the mission level or system level of the air combat system undergo significant changes, it can be determined that the changes in elements and structures have triggered the emergence of the combat capability of the air combat system; If there is no change in the air combat system's mission-level and system-level combat capability items and indicators, it can be determined that the changes in elements and structures have not triggered the emergence of the air combat system's combat capability.

Images