Advertisement

An Evaluation Method of Combat Aircraft Contribution Effectiveness Based on Mission Success Space Design

  • Yuan Gao
  • Hu Liu
  • Yaoming ZhouEmail author
Original Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

In the military field, equipment development has increasingly focused on the system-of-systems (SoS) oriented combat. To answer the question “how to judge the success of a mission in SoS combat”, this paper proposes a concept of “Mission Success Space (MSS)”. After designing MSS and computing Mission Success Rate (MSR), an evaluation method of effectiveness is defined to quantify the contribution of a combat aircraft to a combat SoS by comparing MSRs of the SoS with and without this aircraft. During MSS design procedure, Mission Success Function (MSF) plays an important role since it gives key parts where the success criterion is changed. In the simulation case, a quadratic function and an S-curve function are used as MSFs to verify the method proposed. In addition, based on the Gaussian fitting results, a new function using inverse design is studied by finding bilateral quantiles of the fitting curves. Finally, the MSS of inverse design is chosen as the best for this case after analyzing the contribution results of these three functions.

Keywords

Mission success Combat simulation Contribution effectiveness System of systems Evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Ms. Li Yan (Beihang University) for her contribution in proofreading. The authors are indebted to the editors and reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    Luo P, Pan-Feng F, Zhou J (2005) Framework to evaluate the combat capability of weapons SoS. Syst Eng Electron, 27(1)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zuo X, Qu Y (2013) Operational ability evaluation model of the armored weapon system of system. Control and decision conference (CCDC) 2013, 25th Chinese, pp 2161–2163.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ccdc.2013.6561293
  3. 3.
    Liu H et al (2015) System of systems oriented flight vehicle conceptual design: perspectives and progresses. Chin J Aeronaut 28(3):617–635.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2015.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gonzales D et al (2005) Network-centric operations case study: air-to-air combat with and without link 16. RAND Corporation, Santa MonnicaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu F, Zhao J, Guo B (2007) Mission success evaluation model based on EOOPN for the division-brigade combat units. Acta Armamentarii 28:481–486Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang S, Xu L, Xu J (2016) Sequential multilayer fusion based assessment model for spacecraft launch success ratio. Aerosp Sci Technol 48:223–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xing L, Levition G (2013) BDD-based reliability evaluation of phased-mission systems with internal/external common-cause failures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 112:145–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Somani AK (1997) Simplified phased-mission system analysis for system with independent component repairs. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng 4:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akcalt E, Davis M, Hamlin RD et al (2001) A decision support system for spare parts management in a wafer fabrication facility. Semiconductor Manufacturing IEEE Trans On 14(1):76–78.  https://doi.org/10.1109/66.909657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Au SK, Beck JL (2001) Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probab Eng Mech 16(4):263–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-8920(01)00019-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morio J, Balesdent M (2015) Estimation of rare event probabilities in complex aerospace and other systems: a practical approach. Woodhead Publishing, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hu JW et al (2009) Monotonic indices space method and its application in the capability indices effectiveness analysis of a notional antistealth information system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernetics—Part A 39(2):404–413.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2008.2010793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karmeshu (1988) Demographic models of urbanization. Environ Plan B 15:47–54Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vasant PM (2003) Application of fuzzy linear programming in production planning. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 2(3):229–241.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025094504415 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vasant PM, Bhattacharya A (2007) Sensing degree of fuzziness in MCDM model using modified flexible S-curve MF. Int J Syst Sci 38(4):279–291.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207720601117108 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dfaz-Madro M, Peidro D, Vasant PM (2010) Vendor selection problem by using an interactive fuzzy multi-objective approach with modified S-curve membership functions. Comput Math Appl 60(4):1038–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2010.03.060 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peidro D, Vasant PM (2011) Transportation planning with modified S-curve membership functions using an interactive fuzzy multi-objective approach. Appl Soft Comput 11(2):2656–2663.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2010.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao D et al (2017) Armament system of systems contribution evaluation based on operation loop. XI Tong Gong Cheng Yu Dian Zi Ji Shu Syst Eng Electron 39(10):2239–2247Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chi Y et al (2016) An equipment offering degree evaluation method for weapon system-of-systems combat network based on operation loop, In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management 2015. Atlantis Press, Paris, pp 477–488Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pei D, Qin D (2017) Evaluation of contribution rate of weapon equipment system of systems capability based on conditional evidential network, In: 2017 8th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), Beijing, China, pp 459-463Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang B, Zhang G, Chang H (2018) Problem of contribution evaluation of weapon system of systems. Comput SimulationGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    North MJ (2007) Managing business complexity discovering strategic solutions with agent based modeling and simulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195172119.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Casalicchio E, Galli E, Tucci S (2010) Agent-based modelling of interdependent critical infrastructures. Int J Syst Syst Eng 2:60–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tian Y, Liu H, Huang J (2015) Design space exploration in aircraft conceptual design phase based on system-of-systems simulation. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci 16(4):624–635.  https://doi.org/10.5139/IJASS.2015.16.4.624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yue K et al (2014) Conceptual design and RCS property research of three-surface strike fighter. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci 15(3):309–319.  https://doi.org/10.5139/IJASS.2014.15.3.309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guo Y et al (2017) Mission simulation and stealth effectiveness evaluation based on fighter engagement manager (FEM). In: DEStech transactions on computer science and engineering, Sanya, China.  https://doi.org/10.12783/dtcse/cece2017/14488

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Aeronautic Science and EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations