面向作战的雷达全功能操作训练效果评估模型

doi:10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2022.12.21

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对雷达装备全功能操作训练效果评估相关指标体系作战指向不强、评估指标量化困难、评估方法适用性不强等问题, 提出一种面向作战的雷达装备全功能操作训练效果评估方法。首先, 从作战与操作的映射关系、全功能操作程序等角度进行分析, 构建了面向作战的评估指标体系, 并对评估指标进行了量化分析。接着, 采取群组专家区间数打分的思路对传统层次分析法(analytic hierarchy process, AHP)进行了改进, 建立了基于群组区间AHP (group interval AHP, GIAHP)的全功能操作训练效果评估模型, 给出了具体的评估步骤。最后, 通过算例应用对提出的评估方法进行了验证, 确定了各评估指标的权重, 得出了算例的评估结果。结果表明, 提出的评估方法能够有效解决雷达装备全功能操作训练效果的评估问题, 对于提升操作人员战斗力具有较强的参考性。

关键词: 雷达, 全功能操作, 训练效果, 评估方法, 作战, 层次分析法

Abstract:

Considering the problems that the related evaluation index system is weakly combat-oriented, the difficulties of evaluation index quantification, and the existence of insufficient applicability of evaluation method in the research on full function operation training of radars, a combat-oriented effect evaluation method is proposed in this paper. Firstly, a combat-oriented evaluation index system is built by analyzing the combat-operation mapping relation and the full function operation procedures. The quantitative analysis of evaluation indexes is also conducted subsequently. Secondly, an evaluation model based on the group interval analytic hierarchy process (GIAHP) is built through modifying the traditional analytic hierarchy process(AHP) method using the theory of group decision-making with interval-number, and the detailed evaluation steps are also given. Finally, an example is given to verify the proposed method, the weight of each index and the evaluation result of the example are both obtained. Results show that the proposed method can solve the problem of training effect evaluation effectively, and it also provides a reference for improving the combat operator capabilities.

Key words: radar, full function operation, training effect, evaluation method, combat, analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

中图分类号:

TN95

王永攀, 苏建新, 龚明, 刘华. 面向作战的雷达全功能操作训练效果评估模型[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2022, 44(12): 3766-3774.

Yongpan WANG, Jianxin SU, Ming GONG, Hua LIU. Combat-oriented effect evaluation model of full function operation training of radar[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 44(12): 3766-3774.

图/表 13

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

图6

图7

参考文献 32

1	施章, 刘新宇, 刘学. 推进雷达装备全功能操作训练向纵深发展[J]. 雷达兵, 2017, (4): 46- 47.
	SHI Z , LIU X Y , LIU X . Push forward the development of full function operation training of radar in depth[J]. Radar Man Magazine, 2017, (4): 46- 47.
2	JAKHAR M , KUMAR S . Role of contextual factors in influencing user evaluation of information system: an analytic hierarchical process approach[J]. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 2020, 34 (4): 463- 487. doi: 10.1504/IJBIS.2020.109014
3	YAN B . A case study for software quality evaluation based on SCT model with BP neural network[J]. IEEE Access, 2020, 8, 56403- 56414. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2981872
4	HUA R . Safety evaluation of nanomaterials in fitness equipment based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. International Journal of Nano and Biomaterials, 2019, 8 (3/4): 181- 188. doi: 10.1504/IJNBM.2019.104930
5	ZHANG L, LIU S T, LI J J. Operator training evaluation system based on deep learning[C]//Proc. of the IEEE 5th Information Technology and Mechatronics Engineering Conference, 2020: 1117-1121.
6	DING R, ZHAGN Z S, XIA Z J. Research on evaluation index of equipment operation and maintenance system based on FAHP[C]//Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine System and Cybernetics, 2020: 188-191.
7	XU J L, SHEN J K, TAN X L, et al. Research on safety evaluation model of drilling operation based on AHP-BP[C]//Proc. of the International Conference on Urban Engineering and Management Science, 2020: 639-641.
8	WANG M , ZHANG Y J , WU B , et al. Effects of spaceflight operation complexity and training on operation error[J]. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2013, 8025 (1): 118- 125.
9	蔺美青. 无源雷达战斗操作模拟训练考核评估方法[J]. 现代防御技术, 2018, 46 (2): 137- 144. 137-144, 192 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-086x.2018.02.022
	LIN M Q . Study on combat operation evaluation method of passive radar simulation training[J]. Modern Defence Technology, 2018, 46 (2): 137- 144. 137-144, 192 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-086x.2018.02.022
10	郝亮亮, 张金生, 李婷, 等. 导弹武器模拟训练考评系统设计[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2020, 42 (4): 843- 850.
	HAO L L , ZHANG J S , LI T , et al. Design of evaluation system for missile simulation training[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 42 (4): 843- 850.
11	王钦钊, 郭傲兵, 李小龙, 等. 基于AHP的装甲分队模拟训练成绩评估方法[J]. 计算机仿真, 2015, 32 (10): 458- 462. 458-462, 470 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9348.2015.10.097
	WANG Q Z , GUO A B , LI X L , et al. Performance evaluation method of armored unit simulation training based on AHP[J]. Computer Simulation, 2015, 32 (10): 458- 462. 458-462, 470 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9348.2015.10.097
12	LI G, XU L W, WANG Y L, et al. An evaluation method of combat service operation performance for surface-to-air missile based on FAHP[C]//Proc. of the International Conference on Computer Science and Automation Engineering, 2012: 643-647.
13	思阅林, 韩英永, 从元元, 等. 基于AHP-云模型的雷达对抗装备模拟训练效果评估[J]. 电子信息对抗技术, 2020, 35 (3): 68- 72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-2230.2020.03.014
	SI Y L , HAN Y Y , CON Y Y , et al. Simulation training effect evaluation of radar countermeasure equipment based on AHP-Cloud model[J]. Electronic Information Ware Technology, 2020, 35 (3): 68- 72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-2230.2020.03.014
14	全军军事术语管理委员会, 军事科学院. 中国人民解放军军语(简本)[M]. 北京: 军事科学出版社, 2011.
	Military Terminology Administration Committee of the PLA , Academy of Military Sciences . The military term of PLA (Abridgement)[M]. Beijing: Military Science Press, 2011.
15	GB 8223—87. 价值工程基本术语和一般工作程序[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1987.
	Basic terms and general working procedures of value engineering[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 1987.
16	李琳琳, 张壮, 罗眉, 等. 指挥控制系统建模与评估[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2020.
	LI L L , ZHANG Z , LUO M , et al. Modeling and evaluation of command and control system[M]. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2020.
17	冯正直, 宋新涛, 王智, 等. 我国军人心理素质研究进展与展望[J]. 心理科学, 2011, 34 (5): 1274- 1279.
	FENG Z Z , SONG X T , WANG Z , et al. The progress and prospect of PLA men's mental quality[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2011, 34 (5): 1274- 1279.
18	张清俊, 杨昌林, 葛华, 等. 空军雷达兵作业负荷测量与评价[J]. 解放军预防医学杂志, 2015, 33 (5): 506- 508.
	ZHANG Q J , YANG C L , GE H , et al. Evaluation of workload in air force radar soldiers[J]. Journal of Preventive Medicine of Chinese People's Liberation Army, 2015, 33 (5): 506- 508.
19	付兆君, 马瑞山. 睡眠剥夺对工作绩效的影响[J]. 航天医学与医学工程, 2000, 13 (4): 240- 243. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0837.2000.04.002
	FU Z J , MA R S . Effects of sleep deprivation on human performance[J]. Space Medicine & Medical Engineering, 2000, 13 (4): 240- 243. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0837.2000.04.002
20	LINDINSKA L , JABLONSKY J . AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company[J]. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 2018, 26 (1): 239- 258. doi: 10.1007/s10100-017-0486-7
21	陈侠, 樊治平. 基于区间数决策矩阵的评判专家水平的研究[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2006, 28 (11): 1688- 1691. 1688-1691, 1716 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-506X.2006.11.021
	CHEN X , FAN Z P . Study on the assessment level of experts based on interval numbers decision matrices[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2006, 28 (11): 1688- 1691. 1688-1691, 1716 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-506X.2006.11.021
22	藏翰林, 李艳玲. 基于群层次分析法的雷达导引头抗干扰性能评估[J]. 探测与控制学报, 2018, 40 (6): 110- 120.
	ZANG H L , LI Y L . ECCM performance evaluation of radar seeker based on group AHP[J]. Journal of Detection & Control, 2018, 40 (6): 110- 120.
23	KUO T . Interval multiplicative pairwise comparison matrix: consistency, indeterminacy and normality[J]. Information Sciences, 2020, 517, 244- 253. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.12.066
24	BOLTURK E , KAHRAMAN C . A novel interval-valued neutrosophic AHP with cosine similarity measure[J]. Soft Computing, 2018, 22 (15): 4941- 4958.
25	GUO B C , JIN L S , SUN D X , et al. Establishment of the characteristic evaluation index system of secondary task driving and analyzing its importance[J]. Transportation Research Part F, 2019, 64 (1): 308- 317.
26	XU Z S , CHEN J . Approach to group decision making based on interval-valued intuitionistic judgment matrices[J]. System Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2007, 27 (4): 126- 133.
27	YUE Z L . A group decision making approach based on aggregating interval data into interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information[J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2014, 38 (2): 683- 698.
28	许先云, 杨永清. 不确定AHP判断矩阵的一致性逼近与排序方法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 1998, (2): 19- 22. 19-22, 71
	XU X Y , YANG Y Q . The consistency approximation and weight calculation method of the judgment matrix in the uncertain type of AHP[J]. Systems Engineering Theory & Practice, 1998, (2): 19- 22. 19-22, 71
29	TIAN Y P, JIN Z Y. Risk assessment of renovation projects of existing buildings in hospitals based on fuzzy AHP method[C]//Proc. of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2019: 055078.
30	龙百元, 王东, 谢冬青, 等. 基于区间判断矩阵的层次化风险评估方法[J]. 计算机工程与应用, 2008, 44 (10): 127- 130.
	LONG B Y , WANG D , XIE D Q , et al. Hierarchy risk evaluation method based on interval judgment matrix[J]. Computer Engineering and Applications, 2008, 44 (10): 127- 130.
31	LIDINSKA L , JABLONSKY J . AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company[J]. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 2018, 26 (1): 239- 258.
32	柳李鹏, 曹菲, 毋凡. 基于专家集成赋权-灰色聚类法的引信抗干扰效能评估[J]. 探测与控制学报, 2018, 40 (6): 7- 13.
	LIU L P , CAO F , WU F . Fuze anti-jamming efficiency evaluation based on expert integrated weighting and grey clustering method[J]. Journal of Detection & Control, 2018, 40 (6): 7- 13.

标度	两个指标相比的具体定义
a_ij=1	表示指标P_i与指标P_j同等重要
a_ij=3	表示指标P_i比指标P_j稍微重要
a_ij=5	表示指标P_i比指标P_j明显重要
a_ij=7	表示指标P_i比指标P_j强烈重要
a_ij=9	表示指标P_i比指标P_j极端重要
a_ij=2、4、6、8	上述相邻判断的中间值
倒数	a_ji=1/a_ij

指标	N
指标	3	4	5	6	7	8
RI	0.514 9	0.893 1	1.118 5	1.249 4	1.345 0	1.420 0
N	9	10	11	12	13	14
RI	1.461 9	1.487 4	1.515 6	1.540 5	1.558 3	1.577 9

分类	内容	数据
作战数据	敌歼击机机飞行速度/(km/h)	1 200~1 500
	最小飞行高度/m	2 000
	雷达对敌方向/(°)	方位240~060
	最大探测距离/km	400
	最小探测距离/km	80
	战场生存最短时间/min	1
操作人员	干扰理论考核/分	80
	目标掌握理论考核/分	90
	最近一次心理评估/分	72
装备情况	载体完好情况	所有功能载体完好
装备情况	功能载体数/个	20
操作需求	所需功能载体总数/个	25
	反干扰操作数据	共8个操作步骤共38个操作子步骤, 前3个有序, 后5个无序
	空中目标掌握	共8个操作步骤共44个操作子步骤, 前3个有序, 后5个无序

分类	操作步骤	操作子步骤数	编号	不准确子步骤编号统计
反干扰操作	有序1	5	1~5	—
	有序2	6	6~11	—
	有序3	3	12~14	—
	无序4	5	15~19	编号16:有序
	无序5	6	20~25	编号23:无序
	无序6	6	26~31	—
空中目标掌握操作	有序1	4	1~4	—
	有序2	4	5~8	—
	有序3	6	9~14	—
	无序4	8	15~22	—
	无序5	4	23~26	编号23/24:无序
	无序6	6	27~32	编号30:无序
	无序7	6	33~38	编号37:无序
	无序8	6	39~44	—

项目名称	操作时间	操作流程		操作人员			操作装备
项目名称	时间贡献度C11	操作准确度C21	操作有效度C22	知识储备率C31	临战心理指数C32	生理状态指数C33	功能完好率C41	功能齐全率C42
相对权重	0.505 2	0.059 1	0.271 0	0.024 6	0.008 8	0.065 7	0.051 2	0.014 5