Weapons equipment portfolios selection based on equipment system contribution rates

doi:10.23919/JSEE.2021.000050

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (3): 584-595.doi: 10.23919/JSEE.2021.000050

• SYSTEMS ENGINEERING • Previous Articles Next Articles

Weapons equipment portfolios selection based on equipment system contribution rates

Peng LIU*(), Jichao LI(), Boyuan XIA(), Danling ZHAO(), Yuejin TAN()

¹ College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China

Received:2020-03-26 Online:2021-06-18 Published:2021-07-26
Contact: Peng LIU E-mail:liupeng81@nudt.edu.cn;ljcnudt@hotmail.comn;xiaboyuan11@nudt.edu.cn;zhaodanling11@163.com;yjtan@nudt.edu.cn
About author:|LIU Peng was born in 1981. He received his master degree in higher education management from the National University and Defense Technology (NUDT), Changsha, China, in 2008. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the College of Systems Engineering, NUDT. His research interests include system of systems engineering, complex systems, systems evaluation and optimization. E-mail: liupeng81@nudt.edu.cn||LI Jichao was born in 1990. He received his B.E. degree in management science and M.E. and Ph.D. degrees in management science and engineering from the National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan, China, in 2013, 2015, and 2019, respectively. His research interests focus on studying complex systems with a combination of theoretical tool and data analysis. E-mail: ljcnudt@hotmail.com||XIA Boyuan was born in 1994. He received his bachelor and master degrees in management science and engineering from the National University and Defense Technology (NUDT), Changsha, China, in 2015 and 2017, respectively. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the College of Systems Engineering, NUDT. His research interests include system of systems engineering, complex systems, and systems evaluation and optimization. E-mail: xiaboyuan11@nudt.edu.cn||ZHAO Danling was born in 1991. He received his Ph.D. degree in management science and engineering from National University and Defense Technology in 2019. Her main research interests include equipment system of systems evaluation and demonstration, and complex network science. E-mail: zhaodanling11@163.com||TAN Yuejin was born in 1958. He was the vice president of Chinese Society of Systems Engineering, the executive chairman of Hunan Society of Systems Engineering. He is a professor and his research interests include complex systems theory, system planning and policy analysis, space resource mission planning, weapon and equipment system demonstration and effectiveness evaluation.E-mail: yjtan@nudt.edu.cn
Supported by:
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71690233), the Scientific Research Foundation of National University of Defense Technology (ZK19-16), and the PLA military graduate student funding project

Abstract

Abstract:

Equipment selection is an essential work in the research and development planning of equipment. The scientific and rational development of weapons equipment portfolios is of considerable significance to the optimization of equipment architecture design, the adequate resources allocation, and the joint combat performance. From the system view, this paper proposes a method of weapons equipment portfolios selection (WEPS) based on the contribution rate of weapon systems, providing a new idea for weapon equipment portfolio selection. Firstly, we analyze the WEPS problem and the concept of the contribution rate under the systems background. Secondly, we propose a combat network modeling method for weapon equipment systems based on the function chain. Thirdly, we propose a WEPS method based on the contribution rate, fully considering the correlation relationships between potential weapons and the old weapon systems by the combat network model, under the limitation of capability demands and budget resources, with the objective to maximally increasing the combat ability of weapon systems. Finally, we make a case study with a specific WEPS problem where the whole calculation processes and results are analyzed and exhibited to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method model.

Key words: weapons equipment system, systems contribution rate, equipment portfolio selection, combat capability, combat network

Peng LIU, Jichao LI, Boyuan XIA, Danling ZHAO, Yuejin TAN. Weapons equipment portfolios selection based on equipment system contribution rates[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 32(3): 584-595.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Table 1

Table 2

Fig 4

Table 3

Fig 5

Table 4

Fig 6

References 31

1	LI J C, ZHAO D L, JIANG J, et al. Capability oriented equipment contribution analysis in temporal combat networks. IEEE Trans. on Systems Man & Cybernetics Systems, 2018: 1–9.
2	CARES J R, JR D Q J. Operations research for unmanned systems. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
3	ZHAO D L, TAN Y J, LI J C, et al Armament system of systems contribution evaluation based on operation loop. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2017, 39 (10): 2239- 2247.
4	LI X B, WANG W P, LIN M, et al The research framework, progress, and key directions of system-of-systems contribution ratio evaluation. Systems Engineering—Theory & Practice, 2019, 39 (6): 1623- 1634.
5	MARSH K, GOETGHEBEUR M, THOKALA P, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis to support healthcare decisions. Cham: Springer, 2017.
6	ABUBAKAR S G, FENG J, DALIBI S G, et al Project portfolio management strategies in housing estate development organizations in Nigeria’s built environment. Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response, 2018, 8 (2): 63- 74. doi: 10.2991/jrarc.2018.8.2.2
7	NATH P, RAMANATHAN R Environmental management practices, environmental technology portfolio, and environmental commitment: a content analytic approach for UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 2016, 171, 427- 437. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.040
8	SULLIVAN M J, SCHWENN R, HOLLIDAY L, et al. Weapon system acquisitions: opportunities exist to improve the department of defense’s portfolio management. Washington DC: Government Accountability Office, 2015.
9	BUEDE D M, BRESNICK T A Applications of decision analysis to the military systems acquisition process. Interfaces, 1992, 22 (6): 110- 125. doi: 10.1287/inte.22.6.110
10	DAGDEVIREN M, YAVUZ S, KILINC N Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 2009, 36 (4): 8143- 8151. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.016
11	SCHINASI K An integrated portfolio management approach to weapon system investments could improve DoD’s acquisition outcomes. Symposium Presentation, 2007, 22 (8): 656- 659.
12	PARNELL G S, GIMENO B I, WESTPHAL D, et al Multiple perspective R&D portfolio analysis for the National Reconnaissance Office’s technology enterprise. Military Operations Research, 2001, 19- 34.
13	PARNELL G S, BENNETT G E, ENGELBRECHT J A, et al Improving resource allocation within the National Reconnaissance Office. Interfaces, 2002, 32 (3): 77- 90. doi: 10.1287/inte.32.3.77.40
14	KARVETSKI C W, LAMBERT J H, LINKOV I Scenario and multiple criteria decision analysis for energy and environmental security of military and industrial installations. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2011, 7 (2): 228- 236. doi: 10.1002/ieam.137
15	PARNELL G S, BURK R C, WESTPHAL D, et al Air Force Research Laboratory space technology value model: creating capabilities for future customers. Military Operations Research, 2004, 9 (1): 5- 17. doi: 10.5711/morj.9.1.5
16	KANGASPUNTA J, LIESIO J, SALO A Cost-efficiency analysis of weapon system portfolios. European Journal of Operational Research, 2012, 223 (1): 264- 275. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.05.042
17	BUCKSHAW D L, PARNELL G S, UNKENHOLZ W L, et al Mission oriented risk and design analysis of critical information systems. Military Operations Research, 2005, 10 (2): 19- 38. doi: 10.5711/morj.10.2.19
18	PARNELL G S, GIMENO B I, WESTPHAL D, et al Multiple perspective R & D portfolio analysis for the national reconnaissance office’s technology enterprise. Military Operations Research, 2001, 6 (3): 19- 34. doi: 10.5711/morj.6.3.19
19	LI J C, GE B F, JIANG J, et al High-end weapon equipment portfolio selection based on a heterogeneous network model. Journal of Global Optimization, 2020, 78, 743- 761. doi: 10.1007/s10898-018-0687-1
20	XIONG J, ZHOU Z B, TIAN K, et al A multi-objective approach for weapon selection and planning problems in dynamic environments. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (3): 1189- 1211.
21	XIA B Y, ZHAO Q S, YANG K W, et al Scenario-based modeling and solving research on robust weapon project planning problems. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 30 (1): 85- 99. doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2019.01.09
22	MOHAGHEGHI V, MOUSAVI S M, VAHDANI B, et al A mathematical modeling approach for high and new technology-project portfolio selection under uncertain environments. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2017, 32 (6): 4069- 4079.
23	CHENG C, LI J C, ZHAO Q S, et al. Research on weapon system portfolio selection based on combat network modeling. Proc. of the Annual IEEE International Systems Conference, 2017: 1–6.
24	LI J C, YANG K W, ZHANG X K, et al Equipment contribution degree evaluation method based on combat network of weapon system-of-systems. Complex Systems and Complexity Science, 2016, 13 (3): 1- 7. doi: 10.13306/j.1672-3813.2016.03.001
25	WANG T, WANG L Y, LIU G Review of assessment methods for contribution rate of weaponry system. Ordnance Industry Automation, 2019, 38 (3): 10- 15.
26	LUO C K, CHEN Y X, HU X, et al Evaluation method of equipment’s contribution rate to system-of-systems based on operation loop and self-information quantity. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2019, 53 (6): 741- 748.
27	DING J F, SI G Y, MA J, et al Mission evaluation: expert evaluation system for large-scale combat tasks of the weapon system of systems. Science China (Information Sciences), 2018, 61 (1): 150- 168. doi: 10.1007/s11432-016-9071-5
28	HU F, HUANG J G, CHU F Grey relation evaluation model of weapon system based on rough set. Acta Armamentarii, 2008, 29 (2): 253- 256.
29	XIA L, ZHANG M Z, YANG J Y, et al Modeling of capability relations oriented to the evolution of operational system-of-systems. Journal of System Simulation, 2019, 31 (6): 1039- 1047.
30	FAN Y P, GUO Q S, WANG J L Task-oriented requirement satisfactory degree analysis method for combat capability of equipment system of systems. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 38 (8): 1826- 1832.
31	LIU P, ZHAO D L, TAN Y J, et al Multi-task oriented contribution evaluation of weapon equipment system of systems. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41 (8): 113- 120.

Equipment	Capability type	Capability level (1 to 9)
E1	Reconnaissance	2
E2	Reconnaissance	3
E3	Decision-making	2
E4	Decision-making	3
E5	Strike	2
E6	Strike	3

Equipment	Capability type	Capability level (1 to 9)	Cost
S1	Reconnaissance	3	30
S2		4	40
S3		5	50
S4		6	60
S5		7	70
S6		9	100
S7	Decision-making	3	30
S8		4	40
S9		5	50
S10		6	60
S11		7	70
S12		8	100
S13	Strike	3	28
S14		4	40
S15		5	50
S16		6	60
S17		7	70
S18		8	78
S19		8	80
S20		9	88

Number	Equipment portfolio	System contribution rate	Normalized system contribution rate	System capability value	Cost
1	S2, S5, S9, S13, S17	0.462 4	1.000 0	0.987 2	258
2	S3, S4, S9, S13, S17	0.462 1	0.999 4	0.987 1	258
3	S2, S5, S9, S14, S16	0.458 9	0.992 4	0.987 2	260
4	S2, S4, S9, S14, S16	0.458 5	0.991 6	0.987 1	260
5	S3, S4, S9, S13, S17	0.452 7	0.979 0	0.988 7	268
6	S1, S2, S3, S9, S13, S17	0.451 9	0.977 3	0.988 5	268
7	S2, S5, S10, S13, S17	0.450 2	0.973 6	0.988 2	268
8	S3, S4, S10, S13, S17	0.449 4	0.971 9	0.988 7	270
9	S1, S2, S3, S9, S14, S16	0.448 5	0.969 9	0.988 5	270
10	S2, S5, S10, S14, S16	0.448 5	0.969 9	0.987 2	266

Number	Equipment portfolio	System contribution rate	Normalized system contribution rate	System capability value	Cost
1	S5, S6, S12, S13, S14, S16	0.112	1	0.998	398
2	S5, S6, S12, S13, S14, S15	0.112	1	0.998	388
3	S1, S6, S9, S12, S13, S14, S15	0.112	1	0.998	398
4	S3, S6, S12, S13, S14, S15	0.112	1	0.998	398
5	S2, S6, S8, S12, S13, S14, S15	0.112	1	0.998	398
6	S1, S3, S6, S12, S13, S14, S15	0.112	1	0.998	398
7	S1, S6, S8, S12, S13, S14, S16	0.112	1	0.998	398
8	S1, S6, S8, S12, S13, S14, S15	0.112	1	0.998	388
9	S2, S6, S7, S12, S13, S14, S16	0.112	1	0.998	398
10	S2, S6, S7, S12, S13, S14, S15	0.112	1	0.998	388

[1]	Jianbin SUN, Jichao LI, Yaqian YOU, Jiang JIANG, Bingfeng Ge. Combat network link prediction based on embedding learning [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33(2): 345-353.
[2]	Jiuyao JIANG, Jichao LI, Kewei YANG. Weapon system portfolio selection based on structural robustness [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(6): 1216-1229.

Weapons equipment portfolios selection based on equipment system contribution rates

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

Share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 31

Related Articles 2

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments