Acta Armamentarii ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (8): 240971-.doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2024.0971
Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Lu1, YAN Jiang1, YIN Peng1,2, LIU Yan1,2,*(), HUANG Fenglei1
Received:
2024-10-18
Online:
2025-08-28
Contact:
LIU Yan
CLC Number:
WANG Lu, YAN Jiang, YIN Peng, LIU Yan, HUANG Fenglei. Optimal Allocation Algorithm of Firepower Resources Based on the Damage Characteristics[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2025, 46(8): 240971-.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
计算项 | 复杂度 | 计算项 | 复杂度 |
---|---|---|---|
距离矩阵 | O(MN) | 毁伤方案效费比 | O(LKNM) |
打击时效性 | O(NMlgM) | 火力可达性 | O(KNM) |
综合发射能力 | O(KN+LM) | 特征抽取 | O(KN2M) |
火力覆盖能力 | O(KMN) | 生成初始解 | O(KMN) |
火力突防能力 | O(KMN) | 更新方案 | O(KMN) |
总数量需求 | O(LKM) | 弹道交叉计算 | O(N2) |
总成本需求 | O(LKM) | 毁伤指标评分 | O(KMN) |
毁伤等级满足 | O(LM) |
Table 1 Computational complexity analysis
计算项 | 复杂度 | 计算项 | 复杂度 |
---|---|---|---|
距离矩阵 | O(MN) | 毁伤方案效费比 | O(LKNM) |
打击时效性 | O(NMlgM) | 火力可达性 | O(KNM) |
综合发射能力 | O(KN+LM) | 特征抽取 | O(KN2M) |
火力覆盖能力 | O(KMN) | 生成初始解 | O(KMN) |
火力突防能力 | O(KMN) | 更新方案 | O(KMN) |
总数量需求 | O(LKM) | 弹道交叉计算 | O(N2) |
总成本需求 | O(LKM) | 毁伤指标评分 | O(KMN) |
毁伤等级满足 | O(LM) |
函数/模型 | 序号 | 权重系数 |
---|---|---|
综合火力分配效能函数 | 1 | (0.7,0.1,-0.1,0.1) |
2 | (0.1,0.7,-0.1,0.1) | |
3 | (0.1,0.1,-0.7,0.1) | |
4 | (0.1,0.1,-0.1,0.7) | |
作战区综合适应度 评估模型 | 1 | (0.7,0.1,0.05,0.05,0.1) |
2 | (0.1,0.7,0.05,0.05,0.1) | |
3 | (0.1,0.1,0.35,0.35,0.1) | |
4 | (0.1,0.1,0.05,0.05,0.7) | |
单目标毁伤方案适应 度评估模型 | 1 | (0.8,0.05,0.05,0.05,0.05) |
2 | (0.05,0.8,0.05,0.05,0.05) | |
3 | (0.05,0.05,0.8,0.05,0.05) | |
4 | (0.05,0.05,0.05,0.8,0.05) | |
5 | (0.05,0.05,0.05,0.05,0.8) |
Table 2 Weights setting
函数/模型 | 序号 | 权重系数 |
---|---|---|
综合火力分配效能函数 | 1 | (0.7,0.1,-0.1,0.1) |
2 | (0.1,0.7,-0.1,0.1) | |
3 | (0.1,0.1,-0.7,0.1) | |
4 | (0.1,0.1,-0.1,0.7) | |
作战区综合适应度 评估模型 | 1 | (0.7,0.1,0.05,0.05,0.1) |
2 | (0.1,0.7,0.05,0.05,0.1) | |
3 | (0.1,0.1,0.35,0.35,0.1) | |
4 | (0.1,0.1,0.05,0.05,0.7) | |
单目标毁伤方案适应 度评估模型 | 1 | (0.8,0.05,0.05,0.05,0.05) |
2 | (0.05,0.8,0.05,0.05,0.05) | |
3 | (0.05,0.05,0.8,0.05,0.05) | |
4 | (0.05,0.05,0.05,0.8,0.05) | |
5 | (0.05,0.05,0.05,0.05,0.8) |
实验序号 | 实验变量 | 变化范围 |
---|---|---|
1 | 目标可打击概率 | 20%~100% |
2 | 弹型的数量 | 1~20 |
3 | 毁伤预案的数量 | 1~10 |
Table 3 Experimental variable parameters
实验序号 | 实验变量 | 变化范围 |
---|---|---|
1 | 目标可打击概率 | 20%~100% |
2 | 弹型的数量 | 1~20 |
3 | 毁伤预案的数量 | 1~10 |
目标可 打击 概率 | 作战 区使 用率 | 导弹型 号使 用率 | 导弹使 用数量 优化率 | 初始弹 道交 叉数 | 优化后 弹道交 叉数 | 综合 突防 概率 | 优化耗 时/s |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.2 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.46 | 63 | 15 | 0.797 | 0.381 |
0.3 | 0.53 | 0.8 | 0.31 | 23 | 3 | 0.864 | 0.255 |
0.4 | 0.47 | 0.8 | 0.37 | 64 | 3 | 0.836 | 0.502 |
0.5 | 0.47 | 0.7 | 0.45 | 26 | 2 | 0.821 | 0.497 |
0.6 | 0.40 | 0.8 | 0.35 | 33 | 1 | 0.813 | 0.924 |
0.7 | 0.33 | 0.7 | 0.53 | 34 | 0 | 0.881 | 0.230 |
0.8 | 0.40 | 0.9 | 0.37 | 30 | 0 | 0.839 | 0.520 |
0.9 | 0.40 | 0.8 | 0.50 | 48 | 0 | 0.865 | 0.264 |
1.0 | 0.20 | 0.8 | 0.32 | 53 | 0 | 0.866 | 0.152 |
Table 4 Experimental results of targets striking probability
目标可 打击 概率 | 作战 区使 用率 | 导弹型 号使 用率 | 导弹使 用数量 优化率 | 初始弹 道交 叉数 | 优化后 弹道交 叉数 | 综合 突防 概率 | 优化耗 时/s |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.2 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.46 | 63 | 15 | 0.797 | 0.381 |
0.3 | 0.53 | 0.8 | 0.31 | 23 | 3 | 0.864 | 0.255 |
0.4 | 0.47 | 0.8 | 0.37 | 64 | 3 | 0.836 | 0.502 |
0.5 | 0.47 | 0.7 | 0.45 | 26 | 2 | 0.821 | 0.497 |
0.6 | 0.40 | 0.8 | 0.35 | 33 | 1 | 0.813 | 0.924 |
0.7 | 0.33 | 0.7 | 0.53 | 34 | 0 | 0.881 | 0.230 |
0.8 | 0.40 | 0.9 | 0.37 | 30 | 0 | 0.839 | 0.520 |
0.9 | 0.40 | 0.8 | 0.50 | 48 | 0 | 0.865 | 0.264 |
1.0 | 0.20 | 0.8 | 0.32 | 53 | 0 | 0.866 | 0.152 |
弹型 数量 | 作战区 使用率 | 导弹型 号使 用率 | 导弹使 用数量 优化率 | 初始弹 道交 叉数 | 优化后 弹道交 叉数 | 综合突 防概率 | 优化耗 时/s |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.20 | 1 | 0.42 | 27 | 0 | 0.91 | 0.123 |
2 | 0.47 | 1 | 0.44 | 40 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.507 |
3 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.53 | 31 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.249 |
4 | 0.40 | 1 | 0.40 | 36 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.231 |
5 | 0.27 | 1 | 0.49 | 34 | 0 | 0.92 | 0.371 |
6 | 0.13 | 1 | 0.39 | 32 | 0 | 0.83 | 0.206 |
7 | 0.33 | 0.86 | 0.45 | 37 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.692 |
8 | 0.20 | 0.87 | 0.37 | 13 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.187 |
9 | 0.27 | 0.78 | 0.16 | 32 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.243 |
10 | 0.33 | 0.90 | 0.22 | 57 | 0 | 0.84 | 0.367 |
11 | 0.33 | 0.73 | 0.38 | 24 | 0 | 0.91 | 0.545 |
12 | 0.20 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 18 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.148 |
13 | 0.13 | 0.69 | 0.26 | 40 | 0 | 0.84 | 0.181 |
14 | 0.27 | 0.79 | 0.45 | 32 | 0 | 0.86 | 0.342 |
15 | 0.27 | 0.67 | 0.30 | 51 | 0 | 0.89 | 0.351 |
16 | 0.33 | 0.69 | 0.23 | 43 | 0 | 0.81 | 0.129 |
17 | 0.33 | 0.65 | 0.11 | 60 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.207 |
18 | 0.20 | 0.61 | 0.22 | 24 | 0 | 0.88 | 0.214 |
19 | 0.27 | 0.53 | 0.45 | 39 | 0 | 0.86 | 0.357 |
20 | 0.13 | 0.50 | 0.37 | 32 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.127 |
Table 5 Experimental results of the number of different projectiles
弹型 数量 | 作战区 使用率 | 导弹型 号使 用率 | 导弹使 用数量 优化率 | 初始弹 道交 叉数 | 优化后 弹道交 叉数 | 综合突 防概率 | 优化耗 时/s |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.20 | 1 | 0.42 | 27 | 0 | 0.91 | 0.123 |
2 | 0.47 | 1 | 0.44 | 40 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.507 |
3 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.53 | 31 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.249 |
4 | 0.40 | 1 | 0.40 | 36 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.231 |
5 | 0.27 | 1 | 0.49 | 34 | 0 | 0.92 | 0.371 |
6 | 0.13 | 1 | 0.39 | 32 | 0 | 0.83 | 0.206 |
7 | 0.33 | 0.86 | 0.45 | 37 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.692 |
8 | 0.20 | 0.87 | 0.37 | 13 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.187 |
9 | 0.27 | 0.78 | 0.16 | 32 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.243 |
10 | 0.33 | 0.90 | 0.22 | 57 | 0 | 0.84 | 0.367 |
11 | 0.33 | 0.73 | 0.38 | 24 | 0 | 0.91 | 0.545 |
12 | 0.20 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 18 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.148 |
13 | 0.13 | 0.69 | 0.26 | 40 | 0 | 0.84 | 0.181 |
14 | 0.27 | 0.79 | 0.45 | 32 | 0 | 0.86 | 0.342 |
15 | 0.27 | 0.67 | 0.30 | 51 | 0 | 0.89 | 0.351 |
16 | 0.33 | 0.69 | 0.23 | 43 | 0 | 0.81 | 0.129 |
17 | 0.33 | 0.65 | 0.11 | 60 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.207 |
18 | 0.20 | 0.61 | 0.22 | 24 | 0 | 0.88 | 0.214 |
19 | 0.27 | 0.53 | 0.45 | 39 | 0 | 0.86 | 0.357 |
20 | 0.13 | 0.50 | 0.37 | 32 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.127 |
毁伤预 案数量 | 作战区 使用率 | 导弹型 号使 用率 | 导弹使 用数量 优化率 | 初始 弹道 交叉数 | 优化后 弹道交 叉数 | 综合突 防概率 | 优化耗 时/s |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.33 | 0.9 | -0.10 | 28 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.255 |
2 | 0.40 | 0.8 | 0 | 67 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.494 |
3 | 0.20 | 0.9 | 0.10 | 40 | 0 | 0.86 | 0.208 |
4 | 0.33 | 0.9 | 0.16 | 32 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.288 |
5 | 0.13 | 0.9 | 0.34 | 35 | 1 | 0.82 | 0.172 |
6 | 0.27 | 0.9 | 0.28 | 34 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.444 |
7 | 0.20 | 0.9 | 0.15 | 40 | 0 | 0.84 | 0.321 |
8 | 0.27 | 0.9 | 0.35 | 51 | 0 | 0.90 | 0.520 |
9 | 0.27 | 0.8 | 0.52 | 45 | 0 | 0.89 | 0.155 |
10 | 0.40 | 0.9 | 0.26 | 41 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.289 |
Table 6 Experimental results of the number of damage schemes
毁伤预 案数量 | 作战区 使用率 | 导弹型 号使 用率 | 导弹使 用数量 优化率 | 初始 弹道 交叉数 | 优化后 弹道交 叉数 | 综合突 防概率 | 优化耗 时/s |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.33 | 0.9 | -0.10 | 28 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.255 |
2 | 0.40 | 0.8 | 0 | 67 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.494 |
3 | 0.20 | 0.9 | 0.10 | 40 | 0 | 0.86 | 0.208 |
4 | 0.33 | 0.9 | 0.16 | 32 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.288 |
5 | 0.13 | 0.9 | 0.34 | 35 | 1 | 0.82 | 0.172 |
6 | 0.27 | 0.9 | 0.28 | 34 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.444 |
7 | 0.20 | 0.9 | 0.15 | 40 | 0 | 0.84 | 0.321 |
8 | 0.27 | 0.9 | 0.35 | 51 | 0 | 0.90 | 0.520 |
9 | 0.27 | 0.8 | 0.52 | 45 | 0 | 0.89 | 0.155 |
10 | 0.40 | 0.9 | 0.26 | 41 | 0 | 0.87 | 0.289 |
规模分类 | N | M |
---|---|---|
小规模 | 10 | 5 |
20 | 10 | |
5 | 10 | |
10 | 20 | |
中规模 | 30 | 15 |
40 | 20 | |
15 | 30 | |
20 | 40 | |
大规模 | 50 | 25 |
60 | 30 | |
25 | 50 | |
30 | 60 |
Table 7 Variable parameters of Experiment 4
规模分类 | N | M |
---|---|---|
小规模 | 10 | 5 |
20 | 10 | |
5 | 10 | |
10 | 20 | |
中规模 | 30 | 15 |
40 | 20 | |
15 | 30 | |
20 | 40 | |
大规模 | 50 | 25 |
60 | 30 | |
25 | 50 | |
30 | 60 |
规模 | 40≤m,n≤80 | 80≤m,n≤120 | 120≤m,n≤200 |
---|---|---|---|
GA | 33.709 | 157.471 | 605.796 |
PSO | 35.911 | 174.533 | 649.032 |
WOA | 35.126 | 165.325 | 649.032 |
BSO | 35.126 | 181.774 | 620.101 |
DGMBSO | 37.947 | 180.916 | 668.363 |
RCI-DGMBSO | 37.657 | 177.968 | 668.811 |
本文算法 | 32.262 | 109.409 | 459.658 |
Table 8 Algorithm performance comparison s
规模 | 40≤m,n≤80 | 80≤m,n≤120 | 120≤m,n≤200 |
---|---|---|---|
GA | 33.709 | 157.471 | 605.796 |
PSO | 35.911 | 174.533 | 649.032 |
WOA | 35.126 | 165.325 | 649.032 |
BSO | 35.126 | 181.774 | 620.101 |
DGMBSO | 37.947 | 180.916 | 668.363 |
RCI-DGMBSO | 37.657 | 177.968 | 668.811 |
本文算法 | 32.262 | 109.409 | 459.658 |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
智洪欣, 赵鹏, 李中, 等. 基于可射击概率约束的防空作战火力优化分配[J]. 兵工学报, 2022, 43(4):952-959.
doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2021.0177 |
doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2021.0177 |
|
[10] |
褚凯轩, 常天庆, 张雷. 基于改进人工蜂群算法的地面作战武器-目标分配[J]. 兵工学报, 2023, 44(7):2171-2183.
doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2022.0294 |
doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2022.0294 |
|
[11] |
周奕丽. 多武器平台协同火力打击任务规划问题研究[D]. 长沙: 国防科技大学, 2016.
|
|
|
[12] |
刘昊, 张策, 丁文韬. 基于智能对抗进化的联合火力打击任务规划方法[J]. 兵工学报, 2019, 40(6):1287-1296.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2019.06.020 |
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2019.06.020 |
|
[13] |
聂俊峰, 陈行军, 苏琦. 基于NSGA-Ⅲ算法的集群目标来袭火力分配建模与优化[J]. 兵工学报, 2021, 42(8):1771-1779.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2021.08.022 |
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2021.08.022 |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
刘昊, 谢鹏, 李玥. 联合火力打击中的多目标组合排序算法[J]. 兵工学报, 2020, 41(12):2570-2578.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2020.12.023 |
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2020.12.023 |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
吴巍, 任成坤, 张成, 等. 非饱和打击场景下考虑附带毁伤的火力分配方法[J]. 兵工自动化, 2024, 43(6):61-66.
|
|
|
[18] |
季顺松, 黄炎焱, 张寒, 等. 基于改进遗传算法的火力分配寻优模型研究[J]. 南京理工大学学报, 2023, 47(1):33-40.
|
|
|
[19] |
张安, 徐双飞, 毕文豪, 等. 空地多目标攻击武器-目标分配与制导序列优化[J]. 兵工学报, 2023, 44(8):2233-2244.
doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2022.0326 |
doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2022.0326 |
|
[20] |
赵文飞, 陈健, 王, 等. 基于强化学习的海上要地群协同防空动态火力分配[J]. 兵工学报, 2023, 44(11):3516-3528.
doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2022.1276 |
doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2022.1276 |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[1] | YAN Jiang, YIN Peng, LIU Yan, ZHANG Wenyu, HUANG Fenglei. An Efficient Aiming Points Optimization Algorithm for Joint Missiles Dstroying Area Targets with Complex Shapes [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2025, 46(4): 240172-. |
[2] | HOU Peng, GE Yuxue, PEI Yang, YUE Yuan, AI Junqiang. UAV Air-to-ground Attack Task Assignment Method Based on Damage Assessment Results [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2025, 46(2): 240212-. |
[3] | ZHANG Siwei, ZHANG Pengcheng, WANG Zi, PENG Wenlian, TAN Linghua, ZHANG Xinggao. Advances in Formulation and Damage Assessment of Thermobaric Explosive [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(S1): 147-160. |
[4] | XU Yibo, YAN Jiarun, ZENG Zhiwen, LÜ Yunxiao, FENG Shiru, LU Huimin. Autonomous Attack Decision-making of Missile Swarm on Ground Targets Based on Visual Damage Assessment without Communication [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(12): 4435-4450. |
[5] | BAI Zhun, HU Yutao, QIAN Bingwen, YAO Hang, LI Xian, GUO Xuekang. Experimental Study on Cumulative Damage of Shear Wall Under Multiple Internal Explosions [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(S1): 50-58. |
[6] | ZHAO Wenfei, CHEN Jian, WANG Yan, TENG Kenan. Dynamic Firepower Allocation for Cooperative Air Defense of Strategic Locations on the Sea Based on Reinforcement Learning [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(11): 3516-3528. |
[7] | QU Wan-jia, XU Zhong-lin, ZHANG Bo-lin, LIU Ying. Battle Damage Assessment Method Based on BN-Cloud Model [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2016, 37(11): 2075-2084. |
[8] | WU Zheng-long, ZHAO Zhong-shi. A Damage Assessment Model Based on Adaptive Neuro-fuzzy Inference System [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2012, 33(11): 1352-1357. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||