A method for evaluating the combat effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system

Abstract

The present application belongs to the technical field of electromagnetic environment effect and strong electromagnetic pulse attack protection, and particularly relates to a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence system combat effectiveness evaluation method, which constructs a four-layer combat effectiveness evaluation system of the strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence system; the importance of the five dimensions of the criterion layer is compared and scored two by two; the geometric mean method is used to calculate the criterion layer weight, and the consistency of the judgment matrix is checked; after the check is passed, the weight of each dimension of the criterion layer is determined; the sub-weight of each index is obtained; the score of each index is calculated combined with the sub-weight of each index; and the total combat effectiveness of the strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence system is obtained. The present application constructs the evaluation criteria from the five dimensions of detection capability, direction finding capability, evidence capability, response capability and battlefield adaptability, provides a scientific combat effectiveness calculation method of the strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence system in the strong electromagnetic pulse defense combat, and guides the quantitative evaluation of the application value.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of electromagnetic environment effects and strong electromagnetic pulse attack protection technology, specifically relating to a method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system. Background Technology

[0002] High-power electromagnetic pulse (HEP) attacks, represented by high-power microwave weapons, have become one of the first-strike methods in modern high-tech warfare due to their high penetration, covert attack, low cost, area damage, and soft-kill capabilities. They are particularly effective in low-intensity conflicts, disabling enemy communication equipment, damaging electronic reconnaissance equipment, and countering drones. Countries like the United States are heavily developing high-power microwave weapons such as CHAMP, EA-18G, HiJENKS, and IFPC-HPM. Currently, my country's research on HEP ​​attacks mainly focuses on protection technologies, such as radome protection, radio frequency channel protection, and backdoor protection. There are relatively few reports on HEP ​​detection and attack forensics technologies, especially on the operational effectiveness assessment of these technologies. This is mainly because electromagnetic pulse signals have high amplitude, wide spectrum, and short duration. There is an urgent need to strengthen the real-time perception, alarm, tracing, and forensics capabilities for HEP attacks, and to develop and deploy HEP detection and attack forensics systems to assess their operational effectiveness, generate combat power, provide battlefield electromagnetic threat information and situational data, and support battlefield electromagnetic space security command and operations. Summary of the Invention

[0003] To address the technical problems existing in the above-mentioned protection technologies, the present invention provides a method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system.

[0004] To solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the technical solution adopted by the present invention is as follows: A method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system includes the following steps: S1. Construct a four-layer operational effectiveness evaluation system for a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence collection system. The four-layer operational effectiveness evaluation system includes a target layer, a criterion layer, an indicator layer, and a scheme layer. S2. According to the 9-level importance scale, the importance of the five dimensions of the criterion layer is compared and scored pairwise, and a 5th-order judgment matrix of the criterion layer is established. The judgment matrix satisfies positive reciprocity. S3. Calculate the weights of the criterion layer using the geometric mean method, and perform a consistency check on the judgment matrix. After the check passes, determine the weights of each dimension of the criterion layer. S4. Based on the experience of domain experts, the weights of each dimension of the criteria layer are allocated to the specific indicators corresponding to the indicator layer to obtain the sub-weights of each indicator. S5. According to the preset scoring criteria, score the 11 specific indicators of the indicator layer of the strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence collection system, and calculate the score of each indicator based on the sub-weights of each indicator. S6. Add up the scores of the 11 specific indicators in the indicator layer to obtain the overall combat effectiveness of the strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence collection system.

[0005] In S1, the target layer is a comprehensive assessment of combat effectiveness; the criteria layer includes five dimensions: detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, evidence collection capability C3, response capability C4, and battlefield adaptability C5; the indicator layer contains 11 specific indicators: detection capability C1 corresponds to coverage and sensitivity indicators; direction finding capability C2 corresponds to direction finding angle and attack source positioning accuracy indicators; evidence collection capability C3 corresponds to attack type identification accuracy and evidence chain integrity indicators; response capability C4 corresponds to signal processing speed and alarm delay indicators; and battlefield adaptability C5 corresponds to anti-interference capability, survivability, and multi-system coordination capability indicators; the solution layer is a front-end reconnaissance processing system with ultra-high-speed acquisition and parallel processing, and a direction finding and positioning system using time-difference direction finding and intersection positioning. The specific 5th-order positive-reverse judgment matrix of the criterion layer in S2 is as follows: The scores for detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, evidence collection capability C3, response capability C4, and battlefield adaptability C5 are 1, 2, 1.5, 3, and 1, respectively. The direction finding capability C2 scores the detection capability C1, self-assessment capability C3, response capability C4, and battlefield adaptability C5 as 1 / 2, 1, 0.7, 2, and 1 / 2, respectively. The scores for evidence collection capability C3, detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, self-control, response capability C4, and battlefield adaptability C5 are 1 / 1.5, 1 / 0.7, 1, 2.5, and 1 / 1.5 respectively. The response capability C4 scores the detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, evidence collection capability C3, self-control, and battlefield adaptability C5 as 1 / 3, 1 / 2, 1 / 2.5, 1, and 1 / 3 respectively. Battlefield adaptability C5 scores 1, 2, 1.5, 3, and 1 for detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, evidence collection capability C3, response capability C4, and itself, respectively.

[0006] The criterion layer weights determined after consistency verification in S3 are as follows: detection capability C1 is 30%, direction finding capability C2 is 15%, evidence collection capability C3 is 20%, response capability C4 is 10%, and battlefield adaptability C5 is 25%.

[0007] The specific calculation method for the consistency check in S3 is as follows: S3.1 Calculate the geometric mean: We obtain C1=1.55, C2=0.85, C3=1.16, C4=0.49, C5=1.55; S3.2, Normalized weight vector: The criterion layer weights are: [0.30, 0.15, 0.20, 0.10, 0.25]. S3.3, Consistency Verification: Calculate the largest eigenvalue The largest eigenvalue was found to be 5.18; Calculate the consistency index Computational consistency In the formula, RI is the random consistency index, the value of the 5th order matrix is ​​1.12, CR is less than 0.1, and the matrix is ​​judged to pass the consistency test.

[0008] The specific sub-weights allocated from the criterion layer weights to the indicator layer in S4 are as follows: At detection capability C1, the coverage is 12% and the sensitivity is 18%. With direction finding capability C2, the direction finding angle is 8% and the attack source location accuracy is 7%. Under the C3 level of forensic capability, the accuracy rate of attack type identification is 14%, and the integrity of the evidence chain is 6%. With a response capability of C4, the signal processing speed is 6% and the alarm delay is 4%. Under the C5 battlefield adaptability standard, the anti-jamming capability is 10%, the survivability is 9%, and the multi-system coordination capability is 6%.

[0009] The preset scoring criteria in S5 are as follows: Coverage: 100 points are awarded if the test frequency range and instantaneous bandwidth meet or exceed the parameter requirements; otherwise, 0 points are awarded. Sensitivity: 100 points are awarded if the test intensity range meets or exceeds the parameter requirements; otherwise, 0 points are awarded. Direction finding angle: 100 points for meeting the parameter requirements, 20 points deducted for each degree exceeding the requirements, with a minimum of 0 points; Attack source location accuracy: 100 points for meeting the parameter requirements, 25 points deducted for every 0.5% R exceeding the requirements, with a minimum of 0 points; Attack type identification accuracy: 100 points for meeting the parameter requirements, 10 points deducted for every 5% decrease, with a minimum of 0 points; Completeness of the chain of evidence: 100 points are awarded if the parameter requirements are met and the entire process of evidence collection is automated; otherwise, 0 points are awarded. Signal processing speed: 100 points for meeting or exceeding parameter requirements, 10 points deducted for every 5ms increase, minimum 0 points; Alarm delay: 100 points are awarded for meeting or exceeding the parameter requirements, and 10 points are deducted for every 10ms increase, with a minimum of 0 points; Anti-interference capability: 100 points for meeting or exceeding parameter requirements; 10 points are deducted for every 1% decrease in detection probability, with a minimum of 0 points. Survivability: 100 points for meeting the requirements for strong field strength resistance and recovery time; 0 points for not meeting the requirements for strong field strength resistance; 10 points are deducted for every 1 second increase in recovery time, with a minimum of 0 points. Multi-system collaboration capability: 100 points for meeting the collaboration latency requirements, 10 points deducted for every 5ms increase, with a minimum of 0 points.

[0010] The score calculation formula for each indicator in S5 is: Indicator score = Actual indicator score × Indicator sub-weight.

[0011] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of this invention are: This invention proposes a method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse (ESP) detection and attack evidence collection system. Referring to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the evaluation model is divided into four layers: target layer, criterion layer, indicator layer, and scheme layer. Evaluation criteria are constructed from five dimensions: detection capability, direction finding capability, evidence collection capability, response capability, and battlefield adaptability. This provides a scientific method for calculating the operational effectiveness of the ESP detection and attack evidence collection system in ESP defense operations, guiding the quantitative evaluation of its application value. Attached Figure Description

[0012] To more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings in the following description are merely exemplary, and those skilled in the art can derive other embodiments based on the provided drawings without creative effort.

[0013] The structures, proportions, sizes, etc. illustrated in this specification are only for the purpose of assisting those skilled in the art in understanding and reading the content disclosed herein, and are not intended to limit the conditions under which the present invention can be implemented. Therefore, they have no substantial technical significance. Any modifications to the structure, changes in the proportions, or adjustments to the size, without affecting the effects and objectives that the present invention can produce, should still fall within the scope of the technical content disclosed in the present invention.

[0014] Figure 1 This is a flowchart for evaluating the operational effectiveness of the high electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system of this invention. Detailed Implementation

[0015] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of this application, and not all embodiments. These descriptions are only for further illustrating the features and advantages of the present invention, and not for limiting the claims of the present invention. Based on the embodiments in this application, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this application.

[0016] The specific embodiments of the present invention will be described in further detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and examples. The following examples are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention.

[0017] This embodiment provides a method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system, such as... Figure 1 As shown, it includes the following steps: First, an operational effectiveness evaluation system is constructed. The Strong Electromagnetic Pulse Detection and Attack Evidence Collection System is the perception layer of the "OODA" closed loop of "perception-judgment-decision-action" in strong electromagnetic pulse defense operations. Using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) combined with a multi-index comprehensive evaluation model, a four-layer evaluation structure is established around the five dimensions of "detection, direction finding, evidence collection, response, and adaptability." (1) Target level: Comprehensive assessment of operational effectiveness; (2) Criteria layer: detection capability (C1), direction finding capability (C2), evidence collection capability (C3), response capability (C4), battlefield adaptability (C5); (3) Indicator layer: detection capability coverage and sensitivity indicators; direction finding capability coverage of direction finding angle and attack source positioning accuracy indicators; evidence collection capability coverage of attack type identification accuracy and evidence chain integrity; response capability coverage of signal processing speed and alarm delay indicators; battlefield adaptability coverage of anti-interference capability, survivability, and multi-system coordination capability indicators, totaling 11 specific indicators.

[0018] (4) Scheme layer: ultra-high speed acquisition and parallel processing are used for front-end detection and processing, and time difference direction finding (intersection positioning) is used for direction finding and positioning.

[0019] Secondly, based on a 9-level importance scale, the impact of the five indicators at the criterion level on the operational effectiveness assessment is compared pairwise and scored, establishing a 5th-order judgment matrix A at the criterion level. The judgment matrix must satisfy positive reciprocity. Next, the quasi-stratum weights are calculated using the geometric mean method, and their consistency is verified. The specific calculation steps are as follows: (1) Calculate the geometric mean: We obtain C1=1.55, C2=0.85, C3=1.16, C4=0.49, and C5=1.55.

[0020] (2) Normalized weight vector: The criterion layer weights are: [0.30, 0.15, 0.20, 0.10, 0.25].

[0021] (3) Consistency verification Calculate the largest eigenvalue The largest eigenvalue was found to be 5.18. Calculate the consistency index Computational consistency In the formula, RI is the random consistency index, the value of a 5th-order matrix is ​​1.12, and CR is less than 0.1, indicating that the matrix passes the consistency test. The weights are: detection capability 30%, direction finding capability 15%, evidence collection capability 20%, response capability 10%, and battlefield adaptability 25%.

[0022] Next, the weights of the criteria layer are allocated to the indicator layer based on the domain expert experience, as detailed in the table below: Then, the performance of the strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence collection system is scored and its operational effectiveness is calculated. The scoring criteria are shown in the table below.

[0023] Based on the table above, calculate the score for each indicator. For example, if the strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system meets the parameter requirements in terms of test frequency range and instantaneous bandwidth, the coverage indicator score is 100×12%=12; if the direction finding angle exceeds the parameter requirements by 2°, the direction finding capability indicator score is (100-2×20)×8%=4.8.

[0024] Finally, the scores of the 11 indicators are added together to obtain the overall operational effectiveness of the Strong Electromagnetic Pulse Detection and Attack Forensics System.

[0025] The above description only illustrates the preferred embodiments of the present invention. However, the present invention is not limited to the above embodiments. Within the scope of knowledge possessed by those skilled in the art, various changes can be made without departing from the spirit of the present invention, and all such changes should be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system, characterized in that: Includes the following steps: S1. Construct a four-layer operational effectiveness evaluation system for a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence collection system. The four-layer operational effectiveness evaluation system includes a target layer, a criterion layer, an indicator layer, and a scheme layer. S2. According to the 9-level importance scale, the importance of the five dimensions of the criterion layer is compared and scored pairwise, and a 5th-order judgment matrix of the criterion layer is established. The judgment matrix satisfies positive reciprocity. S3. Calculate the weights of the criterion layer using the geometric mean method, and perform a consistency check on the judgment matrix. After the check passes, determine the weights of each dimension of the criterion layer. S4. Based on the experience of domain experts, the weights of each dimension of the criteria layer are allocated to the specific indicators corresponding to the indicator layer to obtain the sub-weights of each indicator. S5. According to the preset scoring criteria, score the 11 specific indicators of the indicator layer of the strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence collection system, and calculate the score of each indicator based on the sub-weights of each indicator. S6. Add up the scores of the 11 specific indicators in the indicator layer to obtain the overall combat effectiveness of the strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack evidence collection system.

2. The method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system according to claim 1, characterized in that: In S1, the target layer is a comprehensive assessment of combat effectiveness; the criteria layer includes five dimensions: detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, evidence collection capability C3, response capability C4, and battlefield adaptability C5; the indicator layer contains 11 specific indicators: detection capability C1 corresponds to coverage and sensitivity indicators; direction finding capability C2 corresponds to direction finding angle and attack source positioning accuracy indicators; evidence collection capability C3 corresponds to attack type identification accuracy and evidence chain integrity indicators; response capability C4 corresponds to signal processing speed and alarm delay indicators; and battlefield adaptability C5 corresponds to anti-interference capability, survivability, and multi-system coordination capability indicators; the solution layer is front-end reconnaissance processing with ultra-high-speed acquisition and parallel processing, and direction finding and positioning with time difference direction finding and intersection positioning.

3. The method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific 5th-order positive-reverse judgment matrix of the criterion layer in S2 is as follows: The scores for detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, evidence collection capability C3, response capability C4, and battlefield adaptability C5 are 1, 2, 1.5, 3, and 1, respectively. The direction finding capability C2 scores the detection capability C1, self-assessment capability C3, response capability C4, and battlefield adaptability C5 as 1 / 2, 1, 0.7, 2, and 1 / 2, respectively. The scores for evidence collection capability C3, detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, self-control, response capability C4, and battlefield adaptability C5 are 1 / 1.5, 1 / 0.7, 1, 2.5, and 1 / 1.5 respectively. The response capability C4 scores the detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, evidence collection capability C3, self-control, and battlefield adaptability C5 as 1 / 3, 1 / 2, 1 / 2.5, 1, and 1 / 3 respectively. Battlefield adaptability C5 scores 1, 2, 1.5, 3, and 1 for detection capability C1, direction finding capability C2, evidence collection capability C3, response capability C4, and itself, respectively.

4. The method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The criterion layer weights determined after consistency verification in S3 are as follows: detection capability C1 is 30%, direction finding capability C2 is 15%, evidence collection capability C3 is 20%, response capability C4 is 10%, and battlefield adaptability C5 is 25%.

5. The method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system according to claim 3, characterized in that: The specific calculation method for the consistency check in S3 is as follows: S3.1 Calculate the geometric mean: We obtain C1=1.55, C2=0.85, C3=1.16, C4=0.49, C5=1.55; S3.2, Normalized weight vector: The criterion layer weights are: [0.30, 0.15, 0.20, 0.10, 0.25]. S3.3, Consistency Verification: Calculate the largest eigenvalue The largest eigenvalue was found to be 5.18; Calculate the consistency index Computational consistency In the formula, RI is the random consistency index, the value of the 5th order matrix is ​​1.12, CR is less than 0.1, and the matrix is ​​judged to pass the consistency test.

6. The method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific sub-weights allocated from the criterion layer weights to the indicator layer in S4 are as follows: At detection capability C1, the coverage is 12% and the sensitivity is 18%. With direction finding capability C2, the direction finding angle is 8% and the attack source location accuracy is 7%. Under the C3 level of forensic capability, the accuracy rate for attack type identification is 14%, and the completeness of the evidence chain is 6%. With a response capability of C4, the signal processing speed is 6% and the alarm delay is 4%. Under the C5 battlefield adaptability standard, the anti-jamming capability is 10%, the survivability is 9%, and the multi-system coordination capability is 6%.

7. The method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The preset scoring criteria in S5 are as follows: Coverage: 100 points are awarded if the test frequency range and instantaneous bandwidth meet or exceed the parameter requirements; otherwise, 0 points are awarded. Sensitivity: 100 points are awarded if the test intensity range meets or exceeds the parameter requirements; otherwise, 0 points are awarded. Direction finding angle: 100 points for meeting the parameter requirements, 20 points deducted for each degree exceeding the requirements, with a minimum of 0 points; Attack source location accuracy: 100 points for meeting the parameter requirements, 25 points deducted for every 0.5% R exceeding the requirements, with a minimum of 0 points; Attack type identification accuracy: 100 points for meeting the parameter requirements, 10 points deducted for every 5% decrease, with a minimum of 0 points; Completeness of the chain of evidence: 100 points are awarded if the parameter requirements are met and the entire process of evidence collection is automated; otherwise, 0 points are awarded. Signal processing speed: 100 points for meeting or exceeding parameter requirements, 10 points deducted for every 5ms increase, minimum 0 points; Alarm delay: 100 points are awarded for meeting or exceeding the parameter requirements, and 10 points are deducted for every 10ms increase, with a minimum of 0 points; Anti-interference capability: 100 points for meeting or exceeding parameter requirements; 10 points are deducted for every 1% decrease in detection probability, with a minimum of 0 points. Survivability: 100 points for meeting the requirements for strong field strength resistance and recovery time; 0 points for not meeting the requirements for strong field strength resistance; 10 points are deducted for every 1 second increase in recovery time, with a minimum of 0 points. Multi-system collaboration capability: 100 points for meeting the collaboration latency requirements, 10 points deducted for every 5ms increase, with a minimum of 0 points.

8. The method for evaluating the operational effectiveness of a strong electromagnetic pulse detection and attack forensics system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The score calculation formula for each indicator in S5 is: Indicator score = Actual indicator score × Indicator sub-weight.

Images