Modern Defense Technology ›› 2023, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (2): 109-118.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-086x.2023.02.013
• INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY • Previous Articles Next Articles
Xin YANG, Weidong XU, Chaochang LIU, Qi JIA, Youbin HAO
Received:
2022-04-29
Revised:
2022-09-19
Online:
2023-04-28
Published:
2023-05-05
作者简介:
杨鑫(1996-),男,陕西岐山人。博士生,研究方向为伪装科学与技术。
基金资助:
CLC Number:
Xin YANG, Weidong XU, Chaochang LIU, Qi JIA, Youbin HAO. Comprehensive Grading of Adaptive Camouflage System Based on AHP and Set Pair Analysis[J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2023, 51(2): 109-118.
杨鑫, 许卫东, 刘朝畅, 贾其, 郝有斌. 基于AHP和集对分析的自适应伪装系统综合评级[J]. 现代防御技术, 2023, 51(2): 109-118.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.xdfyjs.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1009-086x.2023.02.013
系统评价一级指标 | 系统评价二级指标 | 各等级分割标准 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
一级性能标准 | 二级性能标准 | 三级性能标准 | ||
战技术指标 | 变色色域 | |||
变色时间 | ||||
变色能耗 | ||||
有效变色次数 | ||||
变色单元尺寸 | ||||
与背景的光谱匹配性 | ||||
勤务性能指标 | 作业展开工作量 | |||
作业撤收工作量 | ||||
作业平时准备工作量 | ||||
对被伪装系统的影响 | ||||
环境适应性指标 | 耐盐雾性 | |||
耐霉菌性 | ||||
日晒牢度 | ||||
耐湿热性 | ||||
适用温度范围 | ||||
抗荷载能力 | ||||
高原适应性 | ||||
可维护性指标 | 使用故障率 | |||
年均维修时间 | ||||
年维护成本 | ||||
构件标准化系数 |
Tabel 1 Grading standard for performance evaluation indexes of adaptive camouflage system
系统评价一级指标 | 系统评价二级指标 | 各等级分割标准 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
一级性能标准 | 二级性能标准 | 三级性能标准 | ||
战技术指标 | 变色色域 | |||
变色时间 | ||||
变色能耗 | ||||
有效变色次数 | ||||
变色单元尺寸 | ||||
与背景的光谱匹配性 | ||||
勤务性能指标 | 作业展开工作量 | |||
作业撤收工作量 | ||||
作业平时准备工作量 | ||||
对被伪装系统的影响 | ||||
环境适应性指标 | 耐盐雾性 | |||
耐霉菌性 | ||||
日晒牢度 | ||||
耐湿热性 | ||||
适用温度范围 | ||||
抗荷载能力 | ||||
高原适应性 | ||||
可维护性指标 | 使用故障率 | |||
年均维修时间 | ||||
年维护成本 | ||||
构件标准化系数 |
标度 | 含义 |
---|---|
1 | 指标 |
3 | 指标 |
5 | 指标 |
7 | 指标 |
9 | 指标 |
2/4/6/8 | 重要程度介于两标度之间 |
Table 2 Scale of comparison matrix
标度 | 含义 |
---|---|
1 | 指标 |
3 | 指标 |
5 | 指标 |
7 | 指标 |
9 | 指标 |
2/4/6/8 | 重要程度介于两标度之间 |
n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RI | 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 |
Table 3 Value of random consistency index RI
n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RI | 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 |
1.000 | 0.414 | 4.000 | 1.000 | 3.740 | 2.000 | |
2.500 | 1.000 | 3.300 | 3.800 | 5.400 | 5.620 | |
0.250 | 0.303 | 1.000 | 0.333 | 0.357 | 0.455 | |
1.00 | 0.263 | 3.000 | 1.000 | 1.200 | 2.780 | |
0.267 | 0.185 | 2.800 | 0.833 | 1.000 | 2.340 | |
0.500 | 0.178 | 2.200 | 0.360 | 0.427 4 | 1.000 |
Table 4 Average comparison matrix results of technical indexes
1.000 | 0.414 | 4.000 | 1.000 | 3.740 | 2.000 | |
2.500 | 1.000 | 3.300 | 3.800 | 5.400 | 5.620 | |
0.250 | 0.303 | 1.000 | 0.333 | 0.357 | 0.455 | |
1.00 | 0.263 | 3.000 | 1.000 | 1.200 | 2.780 | |
0.267 | 0.185 | 2.800 | 0.833 | 1.000 | 2.340 | |
0.500 | 0.178 | 2.200 | 0.360 | 0.427 4 | 1.000 |
1.000 | 5.800 | 6.810 | 1.200 | |
0.172 | 1.000 | 2.740 | 0.271 | |
0.147 | 0.365 | 1.000 | 0.210 | |
0.833 | 3.690 | 4.752 | 1.000 |
Table 5 Average comparison matrix results of service indexes
1.000 | 5.800 | 6.810 | 1.200 | |
0.172 | 1.000 | 2.740 | 0.271 | |
0.147 | 0.365 | 1.000 | 0.210 | |
0.833 | 3.690 | 4.752 | 1.000 |
1.000 | 0.846 | 0.355 | 0.667 | 0.262 | 0.343 | 0.260 | |
1.182 | 1.000 | 0.270 | 0.467 | 0.265 | 0.292 | 0.273 | |
2.820 | 3.710 | 1.000 | 1.241 | 0.409 | 0.515 | 0.414 | |
1.500 | 2.142 | 0.806 | 1.000 | 0.335 | 0.417 | 0.391 | |
3.811 | 3.770 | 2.447 | 2.984 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.474 | |
2.918 | 3.422 | 1.942 | 2.400 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.260 | |
3.840 | 3.662 | 2.415 | 2.56 | 2.110 | 0.794 | 1.000 |
Table 6 Average comparison matrix results of environmental adaptability indexes
1.000 | 0.846 | 0.355 | 0.667 | 0.262 | 0.343 | 0.260 | |
1.182 | 1.000 | 0.270 | 0.467 | 0.265 | 0.292 | 0.273 | |
2.820 | 3.710 | 1.000 | 1.241 | 0.409 | 0.515 | 0.414 | |
1.500 | 2.142 | 0.806 | 1.000 | 0.335 | 0.417 | 0.391 | |
3.811 | 3.770 | 2.447 | 2.984 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.474 | |
2.918 | 3.422 | 1.942 | 2.400 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.260 | |
3.840 | 3.662 | 2.415 | 2.56 | 2.110 | 0.794 | 1.000 |
1.000 | 2.419 | 3.551 | 1.254 | |
0.413 | 1.000 | 2.280 | 0.546 | |
0.282 | 0.439 | 1.000 | 0.273 | |
0.797 | 1.830 | 3.660 | 1.000 |
Table 7 Average comparison matrix results of maintenance indexes
1.000 | 2.419 | 3.551 | 1.254 | |
0.413 | 1.000 | 2.280 | 0.546 | |
0.282 | 0.439 | 1.000 | 0.273 | |
0.797 | 1.830 | 3.660 | 1.000 |
总目标 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
1.000 | 3.114 | 4.820 | 5.500 | |
0.321 | 1.000 | 0.820 | 3.320 | |
0.208 | 1.220 | 1.000 | 1.889 | |
0.182 | 0.301 | 0.529 | 1.000 |
Table 8 Average comparison matrix results of all first-level indexes
总目标 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
1.000 | 3.114 | 4.820 | 5.500 | |
0.321 | 1.000 | 0.820 | 3.320 | |
0.208 | 1.220 | 1.000 | 1.889 | |
0.182 | 0.301 | 0.529 | 1.000 |
总权重 | 层次总排序 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.57 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.08 | |||
0.197 | - | - | - | 0.112 | 2 | |
0.408 | - | - | - | 0.232 | 1 | |
0.057 | - | - | - | 0.032 | 11 | |
0.152 | - | - | - | 0.087 | 4 | |
0.110 | - | - | - | 0.063 | 6 | |
0.076 | - | - | - | 0.043 | 7 | |
- | 0.473 | - | - | 0.090 | 3 | |
- | 0.113 | - | - | 0.021 | 14 | |
- | 0.061 | - | - | 0.012 | 18 | |
- | 0.353 | - | - | 0.067 | 5 | |
- | - | 0.056 | - | 0.010 | 19 | |
- | - | 0.054 | - | 0.009 | 20 | |
- | - | 0.126 | - | 0.020 | 15 | |
- | - | 0.090 | - | 0.014 | 17 | |
- | - | 0.212 | - | 0.034 | 10 | |
- | - | 0.215 | - | 0.034 | 9 | |
- | - | 0.247 | - | 0.040 | 8 | |
- | - | - | 0.393 | 0.031 | 12 | |
- | - | - | 0.184 | 0.015 | 16 | |
- | - | - | 0.097 | 0.008 | 21 | |
- | - | - | 0.329 | 0.026 | 13 |
Table 9 Total weight and total level ranking results of indexes
总权重 | 层次总排序 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.57 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.08 | |||
0.197 | - | - | - | 0.112 | 2 | |
0.408 | - | - | - | 0.232 | 1 | |
0.057 | - | - | - | 0.032 | 11 | |
0.152 | - | - | - | 0.087 | 4 | |
0.110 | - | - | - | 0.063 | 6 | |
0.076 | - | - | - | 0.043 | 7 | |
- | 0.473 | - | - | 0.090 | 3 | |
- | 0.113 | - | - | 0.021 | 14 | |
- | 0.061 | - | - | 0.012 | 18 | |
- | 0.353 | - | - | 0.067 | 5 | |
- | - | 0.056 | - | 0.010 | 19 | |
- | - | 0.054 | - | 0.009 | 20 | |
- | - | 0.126 | - | 0.020 | 15 | |
- | - | 0.090 | - | 0.014 | 17 | |
- | - | 0.212 | - | 0.034 | 10 | |
- | - | 0.215 | - | 0.034 | 9 | |
- | - | 0.247 | - | 0.040 | 8 | |
- | - | - | 0.393 | 0.031 | 12 | |
- | - | - | 0.184 | 0.015 | 16 | |
- | - | - | 0.097 | 0.008 | 21 | |
- | - | - | 0.329 | 0.026 | 13 |
一级指标 | 二级指标 | 指标值 |
---|---|---|
战技术指标 | 变色色域 | |
变色时间 | ||
变色能耗 | ||
有效变色次数 | ||
变色单元尺寸 | ||
与背景的光谱匹配性 | ||
勤务性能指标 | 作业展开工作量 | |
作业撤收工作量 | ||
作业平时准备工作量 | ||
对被伪装系统的影响 | ||
环境适应性指标 | 耐盐雾性 | |
耐霉菌性 | ||
日晒牢度 | ||
耐湿热性 | ||
适用温度范围 | ||
抗荷载能力 | ||
高原适应性 | ||
可维护性指标 | 使用故障率 | |
年均维修时间 | ||
年维护成本 | ||
构件标准化系数 |
Table 10 Evaluation index results of an adaptive camouflage system
一级指标 | 二级指标 | 指标值 |
---|---|---|
战技术指标 | 变色色域 | |
变色时间 | ||
变色能耗 | ||
有效变色次数 | ||
变色单元尺寸 | ||
与背景的光谱匹配性 | ||
勤务性能指标 | 作业展开工作量 | |
作业撤收工作量 | ||
作业平时准备工作量 | ||
对被伪装系统的影响 | ||
环境适应性指标 | 耐盐雾性 | |
耐霉菌性 | ||
日晒牢度 | ||
耐湿热性 | ||
适用温度范围 | ||
抗荷载能力 | ||
高原适应性 | ||
可维护性指标 | 使用故障率 | |
年均维修时间 | ||
年维护成本 | ||
构件标准化系数 |
总联系度 | 一级指标系数 | 一级指标联系度 | 二级指标系数 | 二级指标联系度 |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.57 | 0.197 | |||
0.408 | ||||
0.057 | ||||
0.152 | ||||
0.110 | ||||
0.076 | ||||
0.19 | 0.473 | |||
0.113 | ||||
0.061 | ||||
0.353 | ||||
0.16 | 0.056 | |||
0.054 | ||||
0.126 | ||||
0.090 | ||||
0.212 | ||||
0.215 | ||||
0.247 | ||||
0.08 | 0.393 | |||
0.184 | ||||
0.094 | ||||
0.329 |
Table 11 Calculation of connection degree of indexes for an adaptive camouflage system
总联系度 | 一级指标系数 | 一级指标联系度 | 二级指标系数 | 二级指标联系度 |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.57 | 0.197 | |||
0.408 | ||||
0.057 | ||||
0.152 | ||||
0.110 | ||||
0.076 | ||||
0.19 | 0.473 | |||
0.113 | ||||
0.061 | ||||
0.353 | ||||
0.16 | 0.056 | |||
0.054 | ||||
0.126 | ||||
0.090 | ||||
0.212 | ||||
0.215 | ||||
0.247 | ||||
0.08 | 0.393 | |||
0.184 | ||||
0.094 | ||||
0.329 |
1 | 甘源滢,刘春桐,李洪才, 等.光学图像伪装效果评估研究现状及关键问题[J].应用光学,2019,40(6):1050-1058. |
GAN Yuanying, LIU Chuntong, LI Hongcai, et al. Research Status and Key Issues of Optical Image Camouflage Effectiveness Evaluation[J]. Journal of Applied Optics, 2019,40(6):1050-1058. | |
2 | 李佳坤,李彦彬,张海瑞, 等.防空导弹装备光学伪装效果的集对评估模型[J].激光与红外,2019,49(6):761-767. |
LI Jiakun, LI Yanbin, ZHANG Hairui, et al. Set Pair Evaluation Model for Optical Camouflage Effect of Air Defense Missile Equipment[J]. Laser & Infrared, 2019, 49(6):761-767. | |
3 | 刘玉通,王结良,胡志毅, 等.工程伪装效果评价指标体系构建问题分析[J].激光与红外,2021,51(3):259-264. |
LIU Yutong, WANG Jieliang, HU Zhiyi, et al. Analysis on the Construction of Evaluation Index System of Engineering Camouflage Effect[J]. Laser & Infrared, 2021, 51(3):259-264. | |
4 | BEAUPRE S, BRETON A C, DUMAS J, et al. Multicolored Electrochromic Cells Based On Poly(2,7-Carbazole) Derivatives for Adaptive Camouflage[J]. Chemistry of Materials, 2009, 21(8):1504-1513. |
5 | MORIN S A, SHEPHERD R F, KWOK S W, et al. Camouflage and Display for Soft Machines[J]. Science, 2012, 337(6096):828-832. |
6 | HONG Shangki, SHIN Sunmi, CHEN Renkun. An Adaptive and Wearable Thermal Camouflage Device[J]. Advanced Functional Materials, 2020, 30(11):1909788.1-1909788.7. |
7 | 韩华亭,赵兵,王崴.自适应精确伪装防护技术初探[J].飞航导弹,2008(7):24-26. |
HAN Huating, ZHAO Bing, WANG Wei. Preliminary Study on Adaptive Precise Camouflage Protection Technology[J]. Winged Missile, 2008(7):24-26. | |
8 | 赵克勤,宣爱理.集对论——一种新的不确定性理论方法与应用[J].系统工程,1996(1):18-23, 72. |
ZHAO Keqin, XUAN Aili. Set Pair Theory——A New Method of Uncertainty Theory and Its Application[J]. Systems Engineering, 1996(1):18-23,72. | |
9 | 张志君,陈伏龙,龙爱华, 等.基于模糊集对分析法的新疆水资源安全评价[J].水资源保护,2020,36(2):53-58,78. |
ZHANG Zhijun, CHEN Fulong, LONG Aihua, et al. Evaluation of Water Resources Security in Xinjiang Based on Fuzzy Set Pair Analysis[J]. Water Resources Protection, 2020, 36(2):53-58, 78. | |
10 | 刘凤朝, 潘雄锋, 施定国. 基于集对分析法的区域自主创新能力评价研究[J]. 中国软科学, 2005(11):83-91,106. |
LIU Fengchao, PAN Xiongfeng, SHI Dingguo. Research on the Evaluation of Regional Independent Innovation Ability Based on Set Pair Analysis[J]. China Soft Science, 2005(11):83-91,106. | |
11 | 周霄宇,赵帅,李波, 等.基于集对分析的防空导弹阵地伪装方案选择[J].四川兵工学报,2010,31(3):65-67. |
ZHOU Xiaoyu, ZHAO Shuai, LI Bo, et al. Selection of Air Defense Missile Position Camouflage Scheme Based on Set Pair Analysis[J]. Journal of Sichuan Ordnance Industry, 2010,31(3):65-67. | |
12 | 吴凡, 陈伏龙, 丁文学,等.基于模糊集对分析——五元减法集对势的新疆水资源承载力评价[J].长江科学院院报, 2021,38(9):27-34. |
WU Fan, CHEN Fulong, DING Wenxue, et al. Water Resources Carrying Capacity Evaluation of Xinjiang Based on Fuzzy Set Pair Analysis and Five-Variable Subtraction Set Pair Potential[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2021,38(9):27-34. | |
13 | 全国金属与非金属覆盖层标准化技术委员会. 金属基体上金属和其他无机覆盖层经腐蚀试验后的试样和试件的评级: [S].北京: 中国标准出版社, 2003. |
National Technical Committee on Metallic and Non-metallic Coating of Standardization Administration of China. Rating of Specimens and Test Pieces After Corrosion Testing of Metallic and Other Inorganic Coatings on Metal Substrates: [S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2003 | |
14 | 全国涂料和颜料标准化技术委员会. 漆膜耐霉菌性测定法: [S].北京:中国标准出版社, 2008. |
National Technical Committee on Paints & Paints & Pigments of Standardization Administration of China. Test Method for Mould Resistance of Paint Films: [S]. Beijing: Standards Presso China, 2008. | |
15 | 全国纺织品标准化技术委员会基础标准分会. 纺织品色牢度试验评定变色用灰色样卡: [S].北京:中国标准出版社, 2009. |
National Technical Committee on Textiles of Standardization of China, Basic Standard Branch Committee. Grey Sample Card for Evaluating Discoloration in Textile Color Fastness Test: [S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2009. | |
16 | 全国涂料和颜料标准化技术委员会. 漆膜耐湿热测定法: [S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2008. |
National Technical Committee on Paints & Paints & Pigments of Standardization Administration of China. Test Method for Damp Heat Resistance of Paint Films: [S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2008. | |
17 | 银小刚. 基于层次分析法和隶属度的可靠性评定简述[J]. 四川建筑, 2011, 31(3):111-112,115. |
YIN Xiaogang. Brief Introduction of Reliability Evaluation Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Membership Degree[J]. Sichuan Architecture, 2011, 31(3):111-112,115. |
[1] | Zhe LI, Yiqi TONG, Wenbo XIA, Yuxin YING. A Multi-source Centralized Air Target Classification Method [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2023, 51(4): 53-62. |
[2] | Yongzheng YU, Xuehui SHAO, Shibo GAO, Zhiwei PU, Bing XUE. Optimal Configuration Design for Multi-platform Collaborative Target Tracking [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2023, 51(3): 107-119. |
[3] | Ying-bo LI, Li-li TAN, Kai-xuan WANG, Zhuo LIANG, Yan-peng PAN. Software Reliability Evaluation Method Based on Component Importance [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2022, 50(6): 103-109. |
[4] | Yun ZHAI, Bing HU, Duan-yang SHI. Reliability Evaluation Method of Radar Equipment Based on Improved AHP-Entropy Weight Method [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2022, 50(4): 148-155. |
[5] | Wei LI, Ying-qi LU. Threat Assessment Method of Air Attack Target Based on Clustering Combination Weighting [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2022, 50(3): 17-24. |
[6] | ZHANG Xin-yu, HU Bing, ZHANG Yi-nan, BIAN Zhi-yun. Maintainability Evaluation Method of Radar Equipment Based on Improved Grey-AHP [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2021, 49(5): 78-87. |
[7] | YAO Kai, HUANG Shao-luo, WANG Jin-sheng, LIU Yue-he. Self-Evaluation Method of Long-Range Rocket Simulation Training Results Based on Optimized AHP [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2021, 49(4): 99-106. |
[8] | LI Hai-jun, XU Ting-xue. Missile Condition Evaluation and Decision Based on Improved Grey Relational Analysis with Combination Weighting [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2021, 49(4): 91-98. |
[9] | YANG Jian-bo, ZONG Si-guang. Research on Effectivess Evaluation Method of Anti-Ship Missile Weapon System Based on Fuzzy-ADC Model [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2021, 49(3): 55-62. |
[10] | CHENG Yang, HU Bing, DONG Wei. Supportability Evaluation of Radar Equipment Based on SPA-AHM [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2018, 46(6): 115-121. |
[11] | JIANG Tian-jiao, FAN Xiu-ying, HUANG Xin-yu. Application of Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process in Reconnaissance Equipment Planning [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2018, 46(5): 62-68. |
[12] | LI Jie-qiao, NIE Cheng-long, QIU Hua-lei. Evaluation of Military Aircraft Operational Suitability Based on Game Theory Combination Weighting [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2018, 46(1): 178-183. |
[13] | LI Guo-jing, ZHOU Chi, QIN Guo-ling. Anti-Interference Efficiency Evaluation and Optimal Selection of Hybrid Spread Spectrum TT&C System [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2018, 46(1): 19-26. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||