Advertisement

An Approximate Algorithm For A Weapon Target Assignment Stochastic Program

  • Robert A. Murphey
Part of the Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications book series (NOIA, volume 42)

Abstract

The Weapon Target Assignment (WTA) problem considers optimally assigning M weapons to N targets so that the total expected damage to the targets is maximized. If at some time t the numbers and locations of weapons and targets are known with certainty, then a single assignment may be made at time t such that all of the weapons are committed. This formulation is denoted static WTA. In its most general form, static WTA is known to be NP-complete. A more difficult problem results when the numbers and locations of targets are not known a priori. Typically, constraints on the weapons maneuverability and range will require a sequence of partial assignments at times t 1, t 2,..., t k , where at each t i , a subset of the n targets are known with certainty and the remainder are either not known or known only stochastically. This dynamic WTA formulation may be modeled as a stochastic program (SP). In general, stochastic programs may be solved by decomposing the SP into a sequence of deterministic problems. However, for dynamic WTA, the integrality and non-linearity of the problem makes it difficult to obtain a solution by decomposition. This paper studies an algorithm that finds an optimal solution for a similar problem which is close to optimal for the original problem but is amenable to on-line execution.

Keywords

Weapon target assignment Stochastic programming. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Athans, P. Hosein and J. Walton (1988), Dynamic weapon target assignment problems with vulnerable C3 nodes, Proceedings of the Command and Control Symposium, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J.R. Birge (1999), “Parallel decomposition of large-scale stochastic nonlinear programs”, working paper.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    C.C. Carve, and J. Tind (1998), “L-shaped decomposition of two-stage stochastic programs with integer recourse”, Mathematical Programming, vol. 83, pages 451–464.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G.G. denBroeder, R.E. Ellison, and L. Emerling (1959), “On optimum target assignments”, Operations Research, vol. 7, pages 322–326.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Flood (1957), Verbal communication at The Princeton University Conference on Linear Programming.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J.B. Hofman, W.A. Metler and F.L. Preston (1990), “A suite of weapon assignment algorithms for an SDI midcourse battle manager,” Naval Research Laboratory Report 6713.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. Laporte and F.V. Louveaux (1993), “The integer L-shaped method for stochastic integer programs with complete recourse”, Operations Research Letters, vol. 13, pages 133–142.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    S.P. Lloyd and H.S. Witsenhausen (1986), “Weapons allocation is NP-complete”, IEEE Summer Simulation Conference.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A.S. Manne (1958), “A target assignment problem”, Operations Research, vol. 6, pages 346–351.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Shultz, L. Stougie, and M.H. van der Vlerk (1998), “Solving stochastic programs with integer recourse by enumeration: a framework using Gröbner basis reductions”, Mathematical Programming, vol. 83, pages 229–252.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Murphey
    • 1
  1. 1.Air Force Research LaboratoryMunitions DirectorateEglin AFBUSA

Personalised recommendations