考虑抢修后变权的战损装备战场态势价值评估

doi:10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2026.10.22

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为解决现有战损装备战场态势价值评估未考虑装备修复后重要度依战场态势变化的问题，提出一种考虑抢修后变权的战损装备战场态势价值评估方法。首先，运用自然语言处理建立战损装备战场态势价值评估指标体系，依据指标层级之间的联系建立关联模型。然后，运用词频-逆文档频率、双向转换编码器表征法与熵权法求得初始组合权重，以装备抢修后战场态势变化为依据，分析过去时刻、未来趋势、态势突变等情况对装备指标数据的影响，采用阶段划分变权的方式对指标权重进行调整，将过去时刻与抢修后态势预测情况下的判断矩阵进行组合。最后，利用变权的逼近理想解排序法对装备战场态势价值进行排序。算例验证结果表明，考虑抢修后变权的评估结果与预测的态势情况相吻合。所提方法能够适应战场态势的变化。

关键词: 战损装备, 战场态势价值, 装备抢修, 趋势预测

Abstract:

In order to address the issue that the current battlefield situation value assessment of war-damaged equipment does not take into account the importance of the equipment after repair,which changes along with the battlefield situation, a method for battlefield situation value assessment of the damaged equipment is proposed considering the variable weight after rush repair. Firstly, the evaluation index system of war-damaged equipment battlefield situation value assessment is established by natural language processing, and the correlation model is established according to the relationship between indicator levels. Then, the initial combination weight is obtained by term frequency-inverse document frequency, bidirectional encoder representations from transformers characterization method and entropy weight method. Based on the battlefield situation changes after equipment rush repair, the influences of past moments, future trends and situation changes on equipment indicator data are analyzed. The index weights are adjusted by the method of stage division with variable weights, and combining the judgment matrix of the past moments with those predicted situation after rush repair. Finally, technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution method with variable weights is used to sort the equipment battlefield situation value. The verification results of the example show that the assessment results considering the change of weight after rush repair are consistent with the predicted situation.The proposed method can adapt to changes in the battlefield situation.

Key words: war-damaged equipment, battlefield situation value, equipment rush repair, trend prediction

中图分类号:

TP 273

蒋明杰, 蒋铁军, 郭立军, 刘少华. 考虑抢修后变权的战损装备战场态势价值评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2026, 48(10): 3516-3530.

Mingjie Jiang, Tiejun Jiang, Lijun Guo, Shaohua Liu. Battlefield situation value assessment of war-damaged equipment with variable weight after rush repair[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2026, 48(10): 3516-3530.

图/表 22

图1

表1

图2

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

表9

表10

表11

表12

表13

表14

表15

表16

表17

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 38

1	Sherman M, Shao S H, Sun X, et al. Counter UAV swarms: challenges, considerations, and future directions in UAV warfare[J]. IEEE Wireless Communication, 2025, 32 (1): 190. doi: 10.1109/MWC.003.2400047
2	黄国辉, 冀春雷, 周晓光, 等. 航母编队远海作战对舰载预警无人机的战术需求[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2022, 47 (11): 48.
3	Jin M R, Choi Y S, Lee H J. Research on the current status of AI security attacks targeting UAVS and countermeasures UAV[J]. Korean Journal of Industrial Security, 2024, 14 (1): 9.
4	吴桐, 谢伟朋, 亓统帅. 反无人机蜂群作战战术战法运用分析[J]. 中国电子科学研究院学报, 2024, 19 (4): 375.
5	Nethamba L, Grobbelaar S. The development of an action priority matrix and technology roadmap for the implementation of data-driven and machine-learning-based predictive maintenance in the south African railway industry[J]. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2023, 34 (3): 318.
6	Qi F Q, Wang Y K, Li F P. A condition-based maintenance policy considering batch sizes for warm standby systems with priority to repair[J]. IEEE Trans. on Reliability, 2024, 73 (4): 1721. doi: 10.1109/TR.2023.3336351
7	Zhao J, Wang X C, Wang S, et al. An evaluation method for pavement maintenance priority classification based on an unsupervised data-driven multidimensional performance model[J]. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2022, 47 (10): 13265. doi: 10.1007/s13369-022-06559-1
8	Zhou H, Parlikad A K, Brintrup A. Data-driven maintenance priority recommendations for civil aircraft engine fleets using reliability-based bivariate cluster analysis[J]. Quality Engineering, 2023, 35 (4): 584. doi: 10.1080/08982112.2022.2163179
9	Choi J, Woo M. A study on the priority selection method for the maintenance project of abandoned buildings focusing on regional ripple effects[J]. The Studies in Regional Development, 2021, 53 (3): 71.
10	米巧丽, 卢明章, 李本威, 等. 考虑多属性约束的战时装备维修任务动态调度[J]. 兵器装备工程学报, 2022, 43 (12): 132.
11	Kwon S, Jeong W L, Moon S B. A relative importance evaluation of bridge navigational equipment using AHP[J]. Journal of Korean Navigation and Port Reserch, 2021, 45 (1): 9.
12	Li C D, Yang W M, Yu Y Y, et al. Research on node importance evaluation of complex products based on three-parameter interval grey number grey relational model[J]. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2021, 41 (1): 1931.
13	Huang X L, Chen J, Cai M, et al. Traffic node importance evaluation based on clustering in represented transportation networks[J]. IEEE Trans. on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2022, 23 (9): 16622. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2022.3163756
14	Ju X Y, Zhao X D, Ma C A, et al. Evaluation method of sandy conglomerate reservoir heterogeneity based on the combined weighted TOPSIS model[EB/OL]. [2025-04-12]. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2023-0069.1.
15	乔蓉, 周峰. 基于PCA-BP神经网络地空导弹武器系统作战效能评估[J]. 军事运筹与系统工程, 2020, 34 (4): 38.
16	Hill K P, Puli A V. An opportunity to advance cannabis science-DEA rescheduling[J]. Jama Psychiatry, 2025, 82 (4): 331. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.4691
17	Guo Y M. Towards the efficient generation of variant design in product development networks: network nodes importance based product configuration evaluation approach[J]. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2023, 34 (2): 615. doi: 10.1007/s10845-021-01813-z
18	Yang P, Hu S, Zhou S J, et al. A topological sensitive node importance evaluation method in aerospace information networks[J]. Sensors, 2023, 23 (1): 213.
19	Zhao M, Wu M Q, Qiao L L, et al. Evaluation of cross-layer network vulnerability of power communication network based on multi-dimensional and multi-layer node importance analysis[J]. IEEE Access, 2022, 10, 67181. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3109902
20	Wang B Y, Yang X C, Lu S R, et al. A multidimensional node importance evaluation method based on graph convolutional networks[J]. Acta Physica Sinica, 2024, 73 (22): 1256.
21	Wang T T, Liang Z W, Zhang R X. Importance evaluation method of complex network nodes based on information entropy and iteration factor[J]. Acta Physica Sinica, 2023, 72 (4): 856.
22	Tian G, Yang X Z, Li Y X, et al. Hybrid weighted communication network node importance evaluation method[J]. Frontiers in Physics, 2023, 11, 1133250.
23	Li Y F, Wang B, Wang H X, et al. Importance assessment of communication equipment in cyber-physical coupled distribution networks based on dynamic node failure mechanism[J]. Frontiers in Energy Research, 2022, 10, 911985.
24	Xu R, Di X Q, He X W, et al. Evaluation method of node importance in temporal satellite networks based on time slot correlation[J]. Eurasip Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2021, 2021, 188. doi: 10.1186/s13638-021-02062-7
25	Ahn H. Performance evaluation of a feature-importance-based feature selection method for time series prediction[J]. Journal of Information and Communication Convergence Engineering, 2023, 21 (1): 82. doi: 10.56977/jicce.2023.21.1.82
26	潘愉锴, 余文浩, 唐震, 等. 基于单位属性的动态重构网络节点重要度评估[J]. 现代防御技术, 2025, 53 (1): 108.
27	Zhou C H, Shen J J, Guo X F, et al. Task-oriented battlefield situation information hybrid recommendation model[J]. Intellgent Automation and Soft Computing, 2021, 27 (1): 127. doi: 10.32604/iasc.2021.012532
28	Li J Y, Hao Z N. A quantum probabilistic linguistic term framework to multi-attribute decision-making for battlefield situation assessment[J]. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2022, 24 (1): 495. doi: 10.1007/s40815-021-01151-5
29	Du Y B, Zhou Z J, He G H, et al. Multi-parameter optimization of laser cladding 15-5PH using TOPSIS-GRA based on combined weighting method[J]. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, 2022, 31 (3): 1934. doi: 10.1007/s11665-021-06369-w
30	Yang L T, Li Y. A new method for ranking the usefulness of negative online reviews based on combined weighting method and improved TOPSIS[J]. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2022, 42 (4): 3719.
31	Agar D A, Hansen P, Rudolfsson M, et al. Combining behavioural TOPSIS and six multi-criteria weighting methods to rank biomass fuel pellets for energy use in Sweden[J]. Energy Reports, 2023, 10, 706. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.07.007
32	Kim K Y, Lee J, Sohn M M. A study on automatic discovery and summarization method of battlefield situation related documents using natural language processing and collaborative filtering[J]. Journal of Internet Computing and Services, 2023, 24 (6): 127.
33	Kook H J, Saerin L, Ahn S, et al. Text-to-text multi-task learning to generate battlefield situation awareness report[J]. Journal of the Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers, 2022, 48 (6): 603. doi: 10.7232/JKIIE.2022.48.6.603
34	Sheridan P, Onsjo M. The hypergeometric test performs comparably to TF-IDF on standard text analysis tasks[J]. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2024, 83 (10): 28875.
35	Al T A, Almazaydeh L, Qawasmeh D, et al. Comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms for email phishing detection using TF-IDF, Word2Vec, and BERT[J]. Computers Materials & Continua, 2024, 81(2): 3395.
36	Gomes L, Torres R D S, Cortes M L. BERT and TF-IDF based feature extraction for long-lived bug prediction in FLOSS: a comparative study[J]. Information and Software Technology, 2023, 160, 107217. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107217
37	杨宏伟, 张红梅, 张骥, 等. 基于TF-IDF加权文本语义相似度算法的变电站一键顺控测试方法研究[J]. 电力科学与技术学报, 2023, 38 (5): 269.
38	Mao T J, Zhang D G, Niu Y J, et al. The determination method of battlefield monitoring interval period based on the complicatedness of situation changes[J]. IEEE Access, 2021, 9, 165947. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3135040

程度	数值
巨大影响、高等级、非常重要	0.9
较大影响、较高等级、较为重要	0.7
一般影响、一般等级、一般重要	0.5
有点影响、较低等级、有点重要	0.3
微小影响、低等级、不重要	0.1
程度在上述两等级之间	0.2，0.4，0.6，0.8

序号	装备类型	当前任务影响度	后续任务影响度	协同任务影响度	部署位置关键性	优势能力持久性	对蓝方威胁等级	载荷作战效能	自主决策能力	通信链路稳定性
E1	侦察车	0.85	0.90	0.88	0.80	0.74	0.70	0.80	0.52	0.50
E2	攻击机	0.86	0.83	0.86	0.82	0.90	0.90	0.85	0.61	0.40
E3	侦察机	0.85	0.85	0.78	0.57	0.70	0.60	0.80	0.50	0.50
E4	运输车	0.85	0.84	0.88	0.40	0.80	0.40	0.60	0.25	0.40
E5	潜航器	0.85	0.83	0.83	0.80	0.75	0.70	0.70	0.35	0.35

序号	装备类型	敏感数据重要等级	技术泄密风险等级	蓝方回收利用价值	关联装备影响数量	关联装备影响程度	关联装备影响时间/min	装备受损程度	装备维修时间/min	维修资源消耗程度
$E1$	侦察车	0.80	0.85	0.80	8	0.80	10	0.60	26	0.0100
$E2$	攻击机	0.75	0.85	0.75	5	0.63	6	0.50	20	0.0100
$E3$	侦察机	0.75	0.85	0.68	8	0.68	10	0.55	25	0.0110
$E4$	运输车	0.75	0.60	0.41	4	0.40	5	0.55	30	0.0120
$E5$	潜航器	0.75	0.60	0.55	6	0.45	5	0.55	32	0.0120

序号	装备类型	${B_1}$	${B_2}$	${B_3}$	${B_4}$	${B_5}$	${B_6}$
E1	侦察车	0.6732	0.5203	0.4160	0.7737	0.7792	0.4453
E2	攻击机	0.6139	0.7294	0.5185	0.7183	0.4303	0.6464
E3	侦察机	0.5636	0.3142	0.4000	0.6513	0.6497	0.4790
E4	运输车	0.6283	0.2290	0.1500	0.2536	0.1289	0.3924
E5	潜航器	0.5812	0.5303	0.2450	0.3402	0.2329	0.3732

序号	装备类型	${B_1}$	${B_2}$	${B_3}$	${B_4}$	${B_5}$	${B_6}$
E1	侦察车	0.6823	0.4951	0.3935	0.7832	0.8017	0.4453
E2	攻击机	0.5912	0.7013	0.4922	0.3312	0.4119	0.6464
E3	侦察机	0.5525	0.2973	0.3896	0.6304	0.6413	0.4790
E4	运输车	0.6354	0.2377	0.1223	0.2613	0.1355	0.3924
E5	潜航器	0.5743	0.5322	0.3012	0.3411	0.1904	0.3732