CN116150940A - Warplane viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision - Google Patents
Warplane viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN116150940A CN116150940A CN202211340702.5A CN202211340702A CN116150940A CN 116150940 A CN116150940 A CN 116150940A CN 202211340702 A CN202211340702 A CN 202211340702A CN 116150940 A CN116150940 A CN 116150940A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- decision
- viability
- value
- index
- follows
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Pending
Links
- 230000035899 viability Effects 0.000 title claims abstract description 44
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 39
- 230000002498 deadly effect Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 35
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 28
- 230000005855 radiation Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 12
- 230000008439 repair process Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 12
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 claims description 34
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims description 24
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 claims description 9
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 claims description 5
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 claims description 5
- 238000013459 approach Methods 0.000 claims description 3
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 claims description 3
- 230000005684 electric field Effects 0.000 claims description 3
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 description 3
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000005457 optimization Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000009286 beneficial effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000001514 detection method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004880 explosion Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
- G06F30/20—Design optimisation, verification or simulation
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F17/00—Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific functions
- G06F17/10—Complex mathematical operations
- G06F17/16—Matrix or vector computation, e.g. matrix-matrix or matrix-vector multiplication, matrix factorization
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F17/00—Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific functions
- G06F17/10—Complex mathematical operations
- G06F17/18—Complex mathematical operations for evaluating statistical data, e.g. average values, frequency distributions, probability functions, regression analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F2111/00—Details relating to CAD techniques
- G06F2111/08—Probabilistic or stochastic CAD
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
- Mathematical Physics (AREA)
- Mathematical Optimization (AREA)
- Computational Mathematics (AREA)
- Mathematical Analysis (AREA)
- Pure & Applied Mathematics (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Algebra (AREA)
- Databases & Information Systems (AREA)
- Software Systems (AREA)
- Radar Systems Or Details Thereof (AREA)
- Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
- Probability & Statistics with Applications (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Bioinformatics & Computational Biology (AREA)
- Evolutionary Computation (AREA)
- Geometry (AREA)
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Evolutionary Biology (AREA)
- Computing Systems (AREA)
- Bioinformatics & Cheminformatics (AREA)
Abstract
The invention relates to the field of fighter viability evaluation, in particular to a fighter viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weighting gray correlation decision, which comprises the following specific steps: s1, selecting a viability evaluation characteristic parameter; s2, selecting a feature vector; s3, constructing a decision matrix; s4, normalizing the decision matrix; s5, constructing a gray association judgment matrix; s6, determining the weight of the objective entropy value; s7, solving a gray correlation comprehensive evaluation value; and evaluating the viability of the fighter by adopting an objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision algorithm according to radar scattering area, infrared radiation stealth capability, electronic countermeasure capability, maneuverability, deadly part proportion, deadly part redundancy probability, deadly part protection/shielding probability, average safety coefficient, accessibility and average rush repair time indexes of deadly structural parts.
Description
Technical Field
The invention relates to the field of fighter viability evaluation, in particular to a fighter viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weighting gray correlation decision.
Background
The development of modern fighter aircraft is a complex system engineering that effectively increases the viability of fighter aircraft throughout the process of aircraft design, manufacture and use. The united states notes the importance of comprehensively and systematically considering the viability problem and established the aircraft viability co-technology collaboration group in 1971; the viability of the aircraft is studied from the beginning of the 90 s of the 20 th century in China, and certain achievements are achieved at present.
The reference "influence of radar scattering cross section on aircraft viability" only uses radar scattering cross section as index to evaluate aircraft viability; the reference literature of the aircraft viability assessment method with the electronic countermeasure function evaluates the aircraft viability in three aspects of aircraft detection probability, infrared guided missile interference effect and probability of threat propagation explosion hitting the aircraft, and has fewer evaluation consideration factors and narrower objects. A scientific evaluation method is found, and the comprehensive evaluation index is used for comprehensively evaluating the aircraft viability, so that the method has important military application value.
Disclosure of Invention
In order to solve the problems, the invention provides a fighter plane viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weighting gray correlation decision.
A fighter plane viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision comprises the following specific steps:
s1, selecting a viability evaluation characteristic parameter, wherein the characteristic parameter is defined and calculated as follows:
1.1, the calculation formula of the radar cross-sectional area sigma is as follows, wherein E 0 E is the incident electric field strength s Is the scattering field strength at a distance from the target R;
1.2, infrared radiation stealth capability, wherein the infrared radiation level of the engine is in direct proportion to the front turbine temperature T4, so that the front turbine temperature T4 is selected to measure the infrared radiation stealth capability of the aircraft;
1.3 electronic countermeasure Capacity E c Selecting an estimated value of (a) according to the configuration condition of the fighter plane electronic countermeasure equipment;
1.4, mobility B, wherein n is as follows pmax For maximum allowable overload of aircraft, n cmar For maximum stable hover overload, SEP is the maximum unit weight residual power;
B＝n pmax +n cmar +SEP×9/300
1.5, the deadly parts ratio is defined as the ratio of the number of deadly parts of the aircraft to the total number of the aircraft parts, the calculation formula is as follows, wherein n lc Is the number of fatal parts, n is the total number of parts;
P lc ＝n lc /n
1.6, the deadly part redundancy probability is defined as the ratio of the number of deadly parts with redundancy to the total number of deadly parts, and the calculation formula is as follows, n rlc Is the number of redundant fatal parts;
P rlc ＝n rlc /n lc
1.7 probability of deadly part protection/occlusion
The calculation formula is as follows, wherein P psj To the extent that the jth deadly component is shielded by armor or component;
1.8, the mean safety factor for fatal structural components is calculated as follows, where F di 、n di Representing the design load and the design overload of the ith fatal structural component, F umaxi 、n umaxi Maximum service load and maximum service overload of the ith deadly structural member, respectively, m is the deadly structural member of the aircraftNumber of pieces;
1.9 accessibility general war plane opening Rate W o To measure, the calculation formula is as follows, wherein S o The sum of the areas of the openable window cover and the maintenance cover on the surface of the aircraft is S, and the surface area of the aircraft is S;
1.10 average rush repair time t mr The calculation formula is as follows, wherein t r For the total rush repair time, n r The number of times of rush repair;
s2, selecting a feature vector: fusing different feature parameters into a feature vector T, wherein
S3, constructing a decision matrix; assume that m decision schemes, namely different types of aircrafts, are respectively X 1 ，X 2 ，…，X m Each decision scheme has n evaluation indexes, namely characteristic parameters G 1 ，G 2 ，…，G n Scheme X i (i=1, 2,3, …, m) is in index G j The attribute value at (j=1, 2,3, …, n) is x ij The decision matrix is:
s4, normalizing the decision matrix; according to different classifications of the indexes, performing extremely poor change on the decision matrix to obtain a normalized matrix Y= (Y) ij ) m×n Wherein y is ij Can be calculated according to the following formula:
s5, constructing a gray association judgment matrix:
5.1, set up
Representing the optimal solution in each index, taking +.>
Best mode for composition
As a reference sequence, with the ith scheme attribute value y i (j)＝{y ij I j=1, 2, …, n } (i=1, 2, …, m) as comparison sequence, then y i And y is 0 The correlation coefficient calculation formula under the j-th index is as follows:
5.2, gray correlation judgment matrix is as follows:
s6, determining the weight of the objective entropy value;
6.1, since the calculation is needed by logarithm in the entropy calculation, in order to avoid nonsensical logarithm, the data in the normalized matrix can be translated, and the i-th contribution degree f to the j-th index attribute ij Can be defined as:
6.2 the information content contained in the contribution to this can be expressed by entropy E j To represent the total amount of contribution of all schemes to the j-th index, there are:
6.3 defining the difference coefficient g of each scheme contribution degree under the j index j And according to the difference coefficient, obtaining index weight omega j ：
g j ＝1-E j ，(j＝1,2，…，n)
S7, solving a gray correlation comprehensive evaluation value: scheme X i The gray correlation comprehensive evaluation value calculation formula is as follows:
in step S1.3, when the omni-directional radar alarm system, E c Take a value of 0.25.
In step S1.3, when the omni-directional radar warning system+the passive interference releasing system, E c Take a value of 0.5.
In step S1.3, when the omnidirectional radar warning system, the passive interference releasing system, the infrared and electromagnetic wave active interference device, E c Take a value of 0.75.
In step S1.3, when the omnidirectional radar warning system, the passive interference releasing system, the infrared and electromagnetic wave active interference device, and the missile approach warning, E c Take a value of 1.0.
In step S5.1,
respectively comparing the minimum value and the maximum value in the absolute differences of the sequences, delta i0 (j)＝|y 0 (j)-y i (j) I is the absolute difference of the comparison sequence, rho is the resolution coefficient, and the value range is 0<ρ<1，Here ρ=0.5 is taken.
In the step S6.2, k>0, take
E j ∈[0,1]If the contribution degree of each scheme tends to be consistent under the j index, namely E j Tending to 1, it indicates that the index is not active in decision making, and the weight of the index can be set to 0; in contrast, if the contribution degree of each scheme is larger under the jth index, the index is indicated to transmit more information, the effect is larger, and the weight of the index is also larger.
In the step S7, the multi-attribute decisions of the m decision schemes are essentially performed by sorting and comparing the gray correlation comprehensive evaluation values of the schemes, and the evaluation value D i The larger the corresponding decision scheme is, the better the corresponding model aircraft is, namely the stronger the viability.
The beneficial effects of the invention are as follows: according to radar scattering area, infrared radiation stealth capability, electronic countermeasure capability, maneuverability, deadly part proportion, deadly part redundancy probability, deadly part protection/shielding probability, average safety coefficient, accessibility and average rush repair time indexes of deadly structural parts, an objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision algorithm is adopted to evaluate the viability of the fighter, and the accurate evaluation of the viability of the fighter is realized through the comprehensive analysis of index factors influencing the viability of the fighter, so that important theoretical basis is provided for scheme evaluation and optimization in the process of fighter design, manufacture, use and maintenance.
Drawings
The invention will be further described with reference to the drawings and examples.
FIG. 1 is a schematic overall flow chart of the present invention.
Detailed Description
The present invention will be further described in the following to make the technical means, the creation characteristics, the achievement of the purpose and the effect of the present invention easy to understand.
As shown in fig. 1, the method for evaluating the viability of the warplane based on the objective entropy value weighting gray association decision comprises the following specific steps:
s1, selecting a viability evaluation characteristic parameter;
in this step, it is assumed that eight types of aircraft have the viability evaluation feature information shown in table 1, and the feature parameter definition and calculation formula are as follows:
TABLE 1
1.1, the calculation formula of the radar cross-sectional area sigma is as follows, wherein E 0 E is the incident electric field strength s Is the scattering field strength at a distance from the target R;
1.2, infrared radiation stealth capability, wherein the infrared radiation level of the engine is in direct proportion to the front turbine temperature T4, so that the front turbine temperature T4 is selected to measure the infrared radiation stealth capability of the aircraft;
1.3 electronic countermeasure Capacity E c Selecting an estimated value of (a) according to the configuration condition of the fighter plane electronic countermeasure equipment;
1.4, mobility B, wherein n is as follows pmax For maximum allowable overload of aircraft, n cmar For maximum stable hover overload, SEP is the maximum unit weight residual power;
B＝n pmax +n cmar +SEP×9/300
1.5, the deadly parts ratio is defined as the ratio of the number of deadly parts of the aircraft to the total number of the aircraft parts, the calculation formula is as follows, wherein n lc Is the number of fatal parts, n is the total number of parts;
P lc ＝n lc /n
1.6, the deadly part redundancy probability is defined as the ratio of the number of deadly parts with redundancy to the total number of deadly parts, and the calculation formula is as follows, n rlc Is the number of redundant fatal parts;
P rlc ＝n rlc /n lc
1.7 probability of deadly part protection/occlusion
The calculation formula is as follows, wherein P psj To the extent that the jth deadly component is shielded by armor or component;
1.8, the mean safety factor for fatal structural components is calculated as follows, where F di 、n di Representing the design load and the design overload of the ith fatal structural component, F umaxi 、n umaxi The maximum service load and the maximum service overload of the ith fatal structural component respectively, and m is the number of the fatal structural components of the aircraft;
1.9 accessibility general war plane opening Rate W o To measure, the calculation formula is as follows, wherein S o The sum of the areas of the openable window cover and the maintenance cover on the surface of the aircraft is S, and the surface area of the aircraft is S;
1.10 average rush repair time t mr The calculation formula is as follows, wherein t r For the total rush repair time, n r The number of times of rush repair;
s2, selecting a feature vector: fusing different feature parameters into a feature vector T, wherein
S3, constructing a decision matrix; assume that m decision schemes, namely different types of aircrafts, are respectively X 1 ，X 2 ，…，X m Each decision scheme has n evaluation indexes, namely characteristic parameters G 1 ，G 2 ，…，G n Scheme X i (i=1, 2,3, …, m) is in index G j The attribute value at (j=1, 2,3, …, n) is x ij The decision matrix is as follows, specifically as shown in table 2:
TABLE 2
S4, normalizing the decision matrix; according to different classifications of the indexes, performing extremely poor change on the decision matrix to obtain a normalized matrix Y= (Y) ij ) m×n Wherein y is ij The calculation can be performed according to the following formula, specifically as shown in table 3:
TABLE 3 Table 3
S5, constructing a gray association judgment matrix:
5.1, set up
Representing the optimal solution in each index, taking +.>
Best mode for composition
As a reference sequence, with the ith scheme attribute value y i (j)＝}y ij I j=1, 2, …, n } (i=1, 2, …, m) as comparison sequence, then y i And y is 0 The correlation coefficient calculation formula under the j-th index is as follows:
5.2, the gray correlation judgment matrix is as follows, specifically as shown in table 4:
s6, determining the weight of the objective entropy value;
6.1, since the calculation is needed by logarithm in the entropy calculation, in order to avoid nonsensical logarithm, the data in the normalized matrix can be translated, and the i-th contribution degree f to the j-th index attribute ij Can be defined as the following formula, as shown in Table 5:
TABLE 5
6.2 the information content contained in the contribution to this can be expressed by entropy E j To represent the total amount of contribution of all schemes to the j-th index, there are:
6.3 defining the difference coefficient of contribution degree of each scheme under the j indexg j And according to the difference coefficient, obtaining index weight omega j ：
g j ＝1-E j ，(j＝1,2，…，n)
S7, solving a gray correlation comprehensive evaluation value: scheme X i The gray correlation comprehensive evaluation value calculation formula is as follows:
in step S1.3, when the omni-directional radar alarm system, E c Take a value of 0.25.
In step S1.3, when the omni-directional radar warning system+the passive interference releasing system, E c Take a value of 0.5.
In step S1.3, when the omnidirectional radar warning system, the passive interference releasing system, the infrared and electromagnetic wave active interference device, E c Take a value of 0.75.
In step S1.3, when the omnidirectional radar warning system, the passive interference releasing system, the infrared and electromagnetic wave active interference device, and the missile approach warning, E c Take a value of 1.0.
In step S5.1,
respectively comparing the minimum value and the maximum value in the absolute differences of the sequences, delta i0 (j)＝|y 0 (j)-y i (j) And I is the absolute difference of the comparison sequences, rho is a resolution coefficient, the value range is 0 < rho < 1, and rho=0.5 is taken.
As shown in step S6.1, each index weight is calculated:
according to the contribution degree matrix, the total contribution amount of all schemes to each index is represented by an entropy value E, and the following can be obtained:
E＝[0.9878 0.9901 0.9906 0.9886 0.9902 0.9902 0.9876 0.9843 0.9873 0.9905]
the difference coefficient of the contribution degree of each scheme can be calculated by the entropy value, and the difference coefficient comprises:
E＝[0.0122 0.0099 0.0094 0.0114 0.0098 0.0098 0.0124 0.0157 0.0127 0.0095]
the weights of the indexes calculated according to the difference coefficient are as follows:
ω＝[0.1081 0.0878 0.0833 0.1011 0.0869 0.0869 0.1099 0.1392 0.1126 0.0842]
in the step S6.2, k>0, take
E j ∈[0,1]If the contribution degree of each scheme tends to be consistent under the j index, namely E j Tending to 1, it indicates that the index is not active in decision making, and the weight of the index can be set to 0; in contrast, if the contribution degree of each scheme is larger under the jth index, the index is indicated to transmit more information, the effect is larger, and the weight of the index is also larger.
In the step S7, the multi-attribute decisions of the m decision schemes are essentially performed by sorting and comparing the gray correlation comprehensive evaluation values of the schemes, and the evaluation value D i The larger the corresponding decision scheme is, the better the corresponding model aircraft is, namely the stronger the viability.
In the step S7, the comprehensive evaluation value of each scheme is calculated, and the calculation formula of the comprehensive evaluation value according to the gray correlation is obtained:
D＝[0.8619 0.5299 0.5945 0.5955 0.6234 0.4954 0.4380 0.4195] T
namely, the viability orders of the aircraft with eight types are as follows: a > E > D > C > B > F > G > H.
According to radar scattering area, infrared radiation stealth capability, electronic countermeasure capability, maneuverability, deadly part proportion, deadly part redundancy probability, deadly part protection/shielding probability, average safety coefficient, accessibility and average rush repair time indexes of deadly structural parts, an objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision algorithm is adopted to evaluate the viability of the fighter, and the accurate evaluation of the viability of the fighter is realized through the comprehensive analysis of index factors influencing the viability of the fighter, so that important theoretical basis is provided for scheme evaluation and optimization in the process of fighter design, manufacture, use and maintenance.
The foregoing has shown and described the basic principles, principal features and advantages of the invention. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the present invention is not limited to the embodiments described above, and that the above embodiments and descriptions are merely illustrative of the principles of the present invention, and various changes and modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention, which is defined in the appended claims. The scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims and equivalents thereof.
Claims (10)
1. A fighter plane viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weight grey association decision is characterized in that: the method comprises the following specific steps:
s1, selecting a viability evaluation characteristic parameter;
s2, selecting a feature vector: fusing different feature parameters into a feature vector T, wherein
S3, constructing a decision matrix; assume that m decision schemes, namely different types of aircrafts, are respectively X 1 ，X 2 ，，X m Each decision scheme has n evaluation indexes, namely characteristic parameters G 1 ，G 2 ，…，G n Scheme X i (i=1, 2,3, …, m) is in index G j The attribute value at (j=1, 2,3, …, n) is x ij The decision matrix is:
s4, normalizing the decision matrix; according to different classifications of the indexes, performing extremely poor change on the decision matrix to obtain a normalized matrix Y= (Y) ij ) m×n Wherein y is ij Can be calculated according to the following formula:
s5, constructing a gray association judgment matrix;
s6, determining the weight of the objective entropy value;
6.1, since the calculation is needed by logarithm in the entropy calculation, in order to avoid nonsensical logarithm, the data in the normalized matrix can be translated, and the i-th contribution degree f to the j-th index attribute ij Can be defined as:
6.2 the information content contained in the contribution to this can be expressed by entropy E j To represent the total amount of contribution of all schemes to the j-th index, there are:
6.3 defining the difference coefficient g of each scheme contribution degree under the j index j And according to the difference coefficient, obtaining index weight omega j ：
g j ＝1-E j ，(j＝1,2，…，n)
S7, solving a gray correlation comprehensive evaluation value: scheme X i The gray correlation comprehensive evaluation value calculation formula is as follows:
2. the method for evaluating the viability of a warplane based on objective entropy value weighted gray correlation decision according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises the following steps of: the definition and calculation formula of the characteristic parameters in the step S1 are as follows:
1.1, the calculation formula of the radar cross-sectional area sigma is as follows, wherein E 0 E is the incident electric field strength s Is the scattering field strength at a distance from the target R;
1.2, infrared radiation stealth capability, wherein the infrared radiation level of the engine is in direct proportion to the front turbine temperature T4, so that the front turbine temperature T4 is selected to measure the infrared radiation stealth capability of the aircraft;
1.3 electronic countermeasure Capacity E c Selecting an estimated value of (a) according to the configuration condition of the fighter plane electronic countermeasure equipment;
1.4, mobility B, wherein n is as follows pmax For maximum allowable overload of aircraft, n cmar For maximum stable hover overload, SEP is the maximum unit weight residual power;
B＝n pmax +n cmar +SEP×9/300；
1.5, the deadly parts ratio is defined as the ratio of the number of deadly parts of the aircraft to the total number of the aircraft parts, the calculation formula is as follows, wherein n lc Is the number of fatal parts, n is the total number of parts;
P lc ＝n lc /n；
1.6, the deadly part redundancy probability is defined as the ratio of the number of deadly parts with redundancy to the total number of deadly parts, and the calculation formula is as follows, n rlc Is the number of redundant fatal parts;
P rlc ＝n rlc /n lc ；
1.7 probability of deadly part protection/occlusion
The calculation formula is as follows, wherein P psj To the extent that the jth deadly component is shielded by armor or component;
1.8, the mean safety factor for fatal structural components is calculated as follows, where F di 、n di Representing the design load and the design overload of the ith fatal structural component, F umaxi 、n umaxi The maximum service load and the maximum service overload of the ith fatal structural component respectively, and m is the number of the fatal structural components of the aircraft;
1.9 accessibility general war plane opening Rate W o To measure, the calculation formula is as follows, wherein S o The sum of the areas of the openable window cover and the maintenance cover on the surface of the aircraft is S, and the surface area of the aircraft is S;
1.10 average rush repair time t mr The calculation formula is as follows, wherein t r For the total rush repair time, n r The number of times of rush repair;
3. according to the weightsThe method for evaluating the viability of the warplane based on objective entropy value weighting gray association decision as claimed in claim 2, which is characterized by comprising the following steps: in step S1.3, when the omni-directional radar alarm system, E c Take a value of 0.25.
4. The method for evaluating the viability of the warplane based on the objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision as claimed in claim 2, wherein the method is characterized by comprising the following steps of: in step S1.3, when the omni-directional radar warning system+the passive interference releasing system, E c Take a value of 0.5.
5. The method for evaluating the viability of the warplane based on the objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision as claimed in claim 2, wherein the method is characterized by comprising the following steps of: in step S1.3, when the omnidirectional radar warning system, the passive interference releasing system, the infrared and electromagnetic wave active interference device, E c Take a value of 0.75.
6. The method for evaluating the viability of the warplane based on the objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision as claimed in claim 2, wherein the method is characterized by comprising the following steps of: in step S1.3, when the omnidirectional radar warning system, the passive interference releasing system, the infrared and electromagnetic wave active interference device, and the missile approach warning, E c Take a value of 1.0.
7. The method for evaluating the viability of a warplane based on objective entropy value weighted gray correlation decision according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises the following steps of: the specific steps in the step S5 are as follows:
5.1, set up
Representing the optimal solution in each index, taking +.>
Best mode for composition
As a reference sequence, with the ith scheme attribute value y i (j)＝{y ij I j=1, 2, …, n } (i=1, 2, …, m) as comparison sequence, then y i And y is 0 The correlation coefficient calculation formula under the j-th index is as follows:
5.2, gray correlation judgment matrix is as follows:
8. the method for evaluating the viability of a warplane based on objective entropy value weighted gray correlation decision of claim 7, wherein the method comprises the following steps: in step S5.1,
respectively comparing the minimum value and the maximum value in the absolute differences of the sequences, delta i0 (j)＝|y 0 (j)-y i (j) I is the absolute difference of the comparison sequence, rho is the resolution coefficient, and the value range is 0<ρ<1, where ρ=0.5.
9. The method for evaluating the viability of a warplane based on objective entropy value weighted gray correlation decision according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises the following steps of: in the step S6.2, k>0, take
E j ∈[0,1]If the contribution degree of each scheme tends to be consistent under the j index, namely E j Tending to 1, it means that the index is not effective in decision making, and the index can be usedWeight of (2) is 0; in contrast, if the contribution degree of each scheme is larger under the jth index, the index is indicated to transmit more information, the effect is larger, and the weight of the index is also larger.
10. The method for evaluating the viability of a warplane based on objective entropy value weighted gray correlation decision according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises the following steps of: in the step S7, the multi-attribute decisions of the m decision schemes are essentially performed by sorting and comparing the gray correlation comprehensive evaluation values of the schemes, and the evaluation value D i The larger the corresponding decision scheme is, the better the corresponding model aircraft is, namely the stronger the viability.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202211340702.5A CN116150940A (en) | 2022-10-29 | 2022-10-29 | Warplane viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202211340702.5A CN116150940A (en) | 2022-10-29 | 2022-10-29 | Warplane viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN116150940A true CN116150940A (en) | 2023-05-23 |
Family
ID=86355159
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202211340702.5A Pending CN116150940A (en) | 2022-10-29 | 2022-10-29 | Warplane viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN116150940A (en) |
-
2022
- 2022-10-29 CN CN202211340702.5A patent/CN116150940A/en active Pending
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Li et al. | A systematic approach to heterogeneous multiattribute group decision making | |
| CN108615122A (en) | A kind of air-defense anti-missile system combat capability assessment method | |
| CN110490422B (en) | Target combat effectiveness situation assessment method based on game cloud model | |
| CN108833416A (en) | A kind of SCADA system Information Security Risk Assessment Methods and system | |
| CN113987789B (en) | Dynamic threat assessment method in unmanned aerial vehicle collaborative air combat | |
| CN105144206A (en) | Multiple objective optimization method and device | |
| CN115471061B (en) | Threat assessment method for low-speed unmanned aerial vehicle cluster | |
| Haiwen et al. | Threat evaluation method of warships formation air defense based on AR (p)-DITOPSIS | |
| CN116993209B (en) | Phased array radar combat effectiveness evaluation method based on improved D-S evidence theory | |
| CN116150940A (en) | Warplane viability evaluation method based on objective entropy value weight grey correlation decision | |
| Li et al. | Effectiveness Evaluation of Missile Electromagnetic Launch System Based on ADC Model Improved by EWM‐FAHP‐ICWGT | |
| CN116227949A (en) | Dynamic threat assessment method and system based on data optimization weight comprehensive weighting target | |
| CN116739428A (en) | Method for analyzing target value of fire striking of subjective and objective weighted TOPSIS (top-down sequence of steps of analysis) soldier | |
| CN103020452A (en) | Method for judging threat level of radar radiation source | |
| CN109784611A (en) | A kind of Formal Safety Assessment method for ocean platform | |
| Yang et al. | A subjective risk analysis approach of container supply chains | |
| CN113378985B (en) | Method and device for detecting countermeasure sample based on layer-by-layer correlation propagation | |
| Qu et al. | An Improved VIKOR Model for Ballistic Missile Threat Assessment And Ranking | |
| Minghua et al. | Rough Set Neural Network Evaluation Method for UAV Reconnaissance Effectiveness | |
| CN108009361B (en) | Helicopter viability design method | |
| CN112163733A (en) | Fighting capacity assessment method based on expert knowledge combined collaborative filtering algorithm | |
| Fu et al. | Armored equipment effectiveness evaluation based on hierarchy-grey theory | |
| He et al. | Threat Level Assessment by Imaging Reconnaissance Satellite to Ground Target Based on Fuzzy Evaluation | |
| Chen et al. | Threat assessment of air defense combat based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets | |
| Zhanzhuang et al. | Evaluation for Warship Satellite Communication System |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination |