Threat evaluation method of warships formation air defense based on AR(p)-DITOPSIS

doi:10.21629/JSEE.2019.02.09

Abstract

Abstract:

For the target threat evaluation of warships formation air defense, the sample data are frequently insufficient and even incomplete. The existing evaluation methods rely too much on expertise and are difficult to carry out for the dynamic evaluation on time series. In order to solve these problems, a threat evaluation method based on the AR(p) (auto regressive (AR))-dynamic improved technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (DITOPSIS) method is proposed. The AR(p) model is adopted to predict the missing data on the time series. Then, the entropy weight method is applied to solve each index weight at the objective point. Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) is used to improve the traditional TOPSIS, and to carry out the target threat evaluation. The Poisson distribution is used to assign the weight value. Simulation results show that the improved AR(p)-DITOPSIS threat evaluation method can synthetically take into account the target threat degree in time series and is more suitable for the threat evaluation under the condition of missing the target data than the traditional TOPSIS method.

Key words: AR(p) model, Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD), dynamic improved technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (DITOPSIS), time series, threat evaluation

Haiwen SUN, Xiaofang XIE. Threat evaluation method of warships formation air defense based on AR(p)-DITOPSIS[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 30(2): 297-307.

Figures/Tables 16

Fig 1

Table 1

Fig 2

Table 2

Fig 3

Table 3

Fig 4

Fig 5

Fig 6

Table 4

Fig 7

Fig 8

Table 5

Table 6

Fig 9

Fig 10

References 33

1	XU H, XING Q H, WANG W. Threat evaluation based on improved structure entropy and gray theory. Journal of Information Engineering University, 2016, 17 (5): 620- 625.
2	DAHLBOM A, HELLDIN T. Supporting threat evaluation through visual analytics. Proc. of the IEEE International Multidisciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support, 2013, 155- 162.
3	NASARUDDIN S H, LATIF L M A. Information system risk analysis using fuzzy techniques. Proc. of the International Symposium on Mathematical Sciences and Computing Research, 2013, MT-12.
4	KARASAKAL O, OZDEMIREL N E, KANDILLER L. Antiship missle defense for a naval task group. Naval Research Logistics, 2011, 58, 305- 322.
5	AZIMIRAD E, HADDADNIA J. Target threat assessment using fuzzy sets theory. Advances in Intelligent Information, 2015, 1 (2): 57- 74. doi: 10.26555/ijain.v1i2.18
6	NASEEM A, KHAN S A, MALIK A W. Real-time decision support system for resource optimization and management of threat evaluation and weapon assignment in air defense. Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2014, 565- 569.
7	DENG Y, SU X, WANG D, et al. Target recognition based on fuzzy dempster data fusion method. Defense Science Journal, 2010, 60 (5): 525- 530. doi: 10.14429/dsj.60.576
8	ERLANDSSON T, NIKLASSON L. Automatic evaluation of air mission routes with respect to combat survival. Information Fusion, 2014, 20, 88- 98. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2013.12.001
9	RIVEIRO M, HELLDIN T, FALKMAN G, et al. Effects of visualizing uncertainty on decision-making in a target identification scenario. Computers and Graphics, 2014, 4, 84- 98.
10	PAN K, PAN X H, GUO X Q. Target threat judgment in surface antiaircraft based on MUDP. Computer and Digital Engineering, 2014, (5): 802- 804, 821.
11	LI C F, ZHAO H, BA H X. Aerial target evaluation model based on multiple attribute decision making. Command Information System and Technology, 2011, 2 (6): 55- 58.
12	XU Y J, WANG Y G, MIU X D. Multi-attribute decision making method for air target threat evaluation based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2012, 23 (6): 891- 897. doi: 10.1109/JSEE.2012.00109
13	ZHANG K, PIAO H Y, KONG W R. The improved VIKOR method based on dynamic parameters optimization in multitarget threat evaluation. Proc. of the 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2017, 1- 8.
14	YUAN Y, GUAN T, YAN X B. Based on hybrid VIKOR method decision making model for supplier selection. Control and Decision, 2014, 29, 551- 558.
15	LEI Y J, WANG B S, WANG Y. Techniques for threat evaluation based on intuitionistic fuzzy reasoning. Journal of Electronics and Information, 2007, 29 (12): 2805- 2809.
16	FANG X Y, WANG H W, SUO Z Y. Radiator threat evaluating method based on rough set and information entropy. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2016, 42 (8): 1755- 1760.
17	OKELLO N, THOMS G. Threat evaluation using Bayesian networks. Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Information Fusion, 2003, 1102- 1109.
18	KUMAR S, TRIPATHI B K. Modelling of threat evaluation for dynamic targets using Bayesian network approach. Procedia Technology, 2016, 24, 1268- 1275. doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.112
19	MENG G L, GONG G H. Threat evaluation of aerial targets based on hybrid Bayesian network. Systems Engineering and Electronic Technology, 2010, 32 (11): 2398- 2401.
20	WANG Y H, HAN Z P, CHEN S D. Analysis and modeling of threat evaluation system in air defense operations. Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014, 46 (4): 558- 565.
21	LIU Z, PENG J, HU Y N. A new kind dynamic Bayesian network and application to threat evaluation. Fire Control and Command Control, 2014, 39 (2): 16- 20.
22	LIAO W H, QIANG J. Learning Bayesian network parameters under incomplete data with domain knowledge. Pattern Recognition, 2009, 42 (11): 3046- 3056. doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2009.04.006
23	REN J, GAO X G, RU W. Paramenter learning of discrete dynamic Bayesian network with missing target data. Systems Engineering and Electronic Technology, 2011, 33 (8): 1885- 1890.
24	KUO T. A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal of Operational Research, 2017, 260, 152- 160. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.052
25	SHAHER H, DANIELA F H. A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Systems With Applications, 2017, 78, 158- 181. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.016
26	ZHU J J, YI K K, JI D Q. Dynamic evaluation of urban credit environment in Jiangsu province based on entropy weight and TOPSIS. Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2017, 19 (2): 46- 52.
27	ZHU Q, XU S Q. Evaluation of influence of nodes in social network based on entropy-weight TOPSIS method. Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2016, 18 (1): 42- 46.
28	LIN H, WANG G B, WU C M, et al. Aerial target threat evaluation method for surface warship formation in air defense operation. Ship Electronic Engineering, 2016, 36 (10): 16- 18.
29	ZHU B. Research on anti-air warfare command and decision for formation of ship-to-air missile. Dalian, China: Dalian Naval Academy of the PLA, 2013. (in Chinese)
30	DAI J J, LI X M. Threat evaluation of air strike targets for warship formation networked air-defense operation. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2013, 35 (3): 532- 538.
31	TANG X, YANG J J, FENG S, et al. AR(p) dynamic catastrophe ranking method of target threat evaluation under the loss of data. Systems Engineering and Electronic Technology, 2017, 39 (5): 1059- 1064.
32	ZHANG K, WANG X, ZHANG C K. Evaluating and sequencing of air target threat based on IFE and dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2014, 36 (4): 697- 701.
33	ZHANG Y L, JI W P, LIU N N. Target threat evaluation based on entropy weight-topsis-grey correlation. Modern Defence Technology, 2016, 44 (1): 72- 78.

Type	Main target	Key features
A	All kinds of anti-ship missiles, anti-radiation missiles, guided bombs, attack unmanned aerial vehicles and so on	The distance where they are found is close, the target velocity is fast, target reflection area is small, and the target is a serious real threat.
B	Fighter aircraft, destroyer aircraft, attack aircraft, bombers	Detection distance is relatively far, the reflection area is relatively large, and the target can constitute a direct threat, which is a more serious real threat.
C	Helicopter	Slower; the target can constitute a direct threat, which is a general reality threat.
D	Early warning aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft (including reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles), tanker, anti-submarine aircraft, jammers	The distance where they are found is far, the target does not constitute a direct threat, but the enemy air raid system is of great significance.
E	Air UFOs	They are serious threats based on the principle of pessimism.

Time slice	Target height $h$/m
$t_1 $	210.15
$t_2 $	200.65
$t_3 $	196.23
$t_4 $	189.48
$t_5 $	181.69
$t_6 $	170.55
$t_7 $	153.78
$t_8 $	131.22
$t_9 $	112.36
$t_{10} $	loss

Target number	Target type	Target height/m	Target radial velocity/Ma	Target attack intention	Target distance/km
1	4	20.0	2.0	3	18.0
2	1	8 800.0	0.3	1	296.0
3	4	25.0	1.1	3	45.0
4	2	600.0	0.3	2	187.0
5	3	120.0	1.3	3	180.0
6	3	175.0	1.2	3	131.0

Time slice	Target type	Target height/m	Target radial velocity/Ma	Target attack intention	Target distance/km
1	1	10 000	0.8	2	260
2	3	8 000	0.8	2	230
3	2	6 000	0.8	3	200
4	1	4 000	0.8	3	170
5	3	2 000	1	4	150
6	3	800	1	4	140
7	3	400	1	4	120
8	3	1 000	1.2	2	110
9	3	2 000	1.2	2	100
10	3	3 500	0.8	2	90

Method	Residual standard deviation
Traditional TOPSIS	0.163 7
ITOPSIS	0.055 1
DITOPSIS	0.032 6