Modern Defense Technology ›› 2026, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (5): 122-136.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-086x.2026.05.010
• PAPERS • Previous Articles Next Articles
Dan LIU1,2, Zhenheng QI1, Guidong SUN1
Received:2025-08-14
Revised:2025-10-24
Online:2026-10-28
Published:2026-11-03
作者简介:刘丹(1987-),女,河南洛阳人。讲师,硕士,研究方向为装备试验鉴定。
CLC Number:
Dan LIU, Zhenheng QI, Guidong SUN. Evaluation of Combat Scenario Model for Missile Anti-jamming Tests[J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(5): 122-136.
刘丹, 齐振恒, 孙贵东. 导弹抗干扰试验作战场景模型评估研究[J]. 现代防御技术, 2026, 54(5): 122-136.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.xdfyjs.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1009-086x.2026.05.010
| W | A | B |
|---|---|---|
| A | a11 | a12 |
| B | a21 | a22 |
Table 1 Comparison of relative importance of each pair of elements in criterion layer (A and B) with respect to target layer (W)
| W | A | B |
|---|---|---|
| A | a11 | a12 |
| B | a21 | a22 |
Table 2 Correspondence between average random consistency index RI and matrix order
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1与A2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| A1与A3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3.29 |
| A2与A1 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.33 |
| A2与A3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| A3与A1 | 1/4 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 0.31 |
| A3与A2 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.33 |
Table 3 Scoring table for target layer (W1) and criterion layer (A1, A2, and A3)
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1与A2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| A1与A3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3.29 |
| A2与A1 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.33 |
| A2与A3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| A3与A1 | 1/4 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 0.31 |
| A3与A2 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.33 |
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a11与a12 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.29 |
| a12与a11 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.77 |
Table 4 Average values of judgment matrices of criterion layer A1 and scheme layer (a11 and a12)
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a11与a12 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.29 |
| a12与a11 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.77 |
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a21与a22 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| a22与a21 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.33 |
Table 5 Average values of judgment matrices of criterion layer A2 and scheme layer (a21 and a22)
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a21与a22 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| a22与a21 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.33 |
| 比较对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a31与a32 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| a32与a31 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.33 |
Table 6 Average values of judgment matrices of criterion layer A3 and scheme layer (a31 and a32)
| 比较对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a31与a32 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| a32与a31 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.33 |
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1与 B2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| B2与 B1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| b11与b12 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2.4 |
| b11与b13 | 1/4 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4.4 |
| b11与b14 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| b12与b11 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2.4 |
| b12与b13 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| b12与b14 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| b13与b11 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4.4 |
| b13与b12 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.4 |
| b13与b14 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4.4 |
| b14与b11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| b14与b12 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| b14与b13 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/4.4 |
| b21与b22 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| b21与b23 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| b22与b21 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.4 |
| b22与b23 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4.4 |
| b23与b21 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| b23与b22 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/4.4 |
Table 7 Scoring equipment attribute indicator scales by 7 experts
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1与 B2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| B2与 B1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| b11与b12 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2.4 |
| b11与b13 | 1/4 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4.4 |
| b11与b14 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| b12与b11 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2.4 |
| b12与b13 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| b12与b14 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| b13与b11 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4.4 |
| b13与b12 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.4 |
| b13与b14 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4.4 |
| b14与b11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| b14与b12 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| b14与b13 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/4.4 |
| b21与b22 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| b21与b23 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| b22与b21 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.4 |
| b22与b23 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4.4 |
| b23与b21 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| b23与b22 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/4.4 |
| 方案层指标 | 准则层权重 | 方案层对准则层权重 | 总权重 |
|---|---|---|---|
| b11 | 0.5 | 0.09 | 0.045 |
| b12 | 0.5 | 0.26 | 0.13 |
| b13 | 0.5 | 0.56 | 0.28 |
| b14 | 0.5 | 0.09 | 0.045 |
| b21 | 0.5 | 0.27 | 0.135 |
| b22 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.305 |
| b23 | 0.5 | 0.12 | 0.06 |
Table 8 Weights of equipment attribute indicators at each level
| 方案层指标 | 准则层权重 | 方案层对准则层权重 | 总权重 |
|---|---|---|---|
| b11 | 0.5 | 0.09 | 0.045 |
| b12 | 0.5 | 0.26 | 0.13 |
| b13 | 0.5 | 0.56 | 0.28 |
| b14 | 0.5 | 0.09 | 0.045 |
| b21 | 0.5 | 0.27 | 0.135 |
| b22 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.305 |
| b23 | 0.5 | 0.12 | 0.06 |
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1与C2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| C2与C1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| c11与c12 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| c11与c13 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2.4 |
| c12与c11 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.4 |
| c12与c13 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| c13与c11 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| c13与c12 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2.4 |
| c21与c22 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| c21与c23 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2.4 |
| c22与c21 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.4 |
| c22与c23 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| c23与c21 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| c23与c22 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2.4 |
Table 9 Scoring action implementation indicator scales by 7 experts
比较 对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1与C2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| C2与C1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| c11与c12 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| c11与c13 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2.4 |
| c12与c11 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.4 |
| c12与c13 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| c13与c11 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| c13与c12 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2.4 |
| c21与c22 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3.4 |
| c21与c23 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2.4 |
| c22与c21 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.4 |
| c22与c23 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| c23与c21 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.4 |
| c23与c22 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2.4 |
| 方案层指标 | 准则层权重 | 方案层对准则层权重 | 总权重 |
|---|---|---|---|
| c11 | 0.5 | 0.15 | 0.075 |
| c12 | 0.5 | 0.56 | 0.280 |
| c13 | 0.5 | 0.29 | 0.145 |
| c21 | 0.5 | 0.15 | 0.075 |
| c22 | 0.5 | 0.56 | 0.280 |
| c23 | 0.5 | 0.29 | 0.145 |
Table 10 Weights of action implementation indicators at each level
| 方案层指标 | 准则层权重 | 方案层对准则层权重 | 总权重 |
|---|---|---|---|
| c11 | 0.5 | 0.15 | 0.075 |
| c12 | 0.5 | 0.56 | 0.280 |
| c13 | 0.5 | 0.29 | 0.145 |
| c21 | 0.5 | 0.15 | 0.075 |
| c22 | 0.5 | 0.56 | 0.280 |
| c23 | 0.5 | 0.29 | 0.145 |
| 比较对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1与D2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.4 |
| D1与D3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.3 |
| D2与D1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 0.7 |
| D2与D3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.3 |
| D3与D1 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.8 |
| D3与D2 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 0.8 |
| d11与d12 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.4 |
| d12与d11 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 0.7 |
| d21与d22 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.3 |
| d22与d21 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 0.8 |
| d31与d32 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.3 |
| d32与d31 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.8 |
Table 11 Scoring battle domain environment indicator scales by 7 experts
| 比较对象 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 专家5 | 专家6 | 专家7 | 平均值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1与D2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.4 |
| D1与D3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.3 |
| D2与D1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 0.7 |
| D2与D3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.3 |
| D3与D1 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.8 |
| D3与D2 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 0.8 |
| d11与d12 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.4 |
| d12与d11 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 0.7 |
| d21与d22 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.3 |
| d22与d21 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 0.8 |
| d31与d32 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.3 |
| d32与d31 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.8 |
| 方案层指标 | 准则层权重 | 方案层对准则层权重 | 总权重 |
|---|---|---|---|
| d11 | 0.40 | 0.58 | 0.23 |
| d12 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.17 |
| d21 | 0.32 | 0.57 | 0.18 |
| d22 | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.14 |
| d31 | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.16 |
| d32 | 0.28 | 0.43 | 0.12 |
Table 12 Weights of battle domain environment indicators at each level
| 方案层指标 | 准则层权重 | 方案层对准则层权重 | 总权重 |
|---|---|---|---|
| d11 | 0.40 | 0.58 | 0.23 |
| d12 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.17 |
| d21 | 0.32 | 0.57 | 0.18 |
| d22 | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.14 |
| d31 | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.16 |
| d32 | 0.28 | 0.43 | 0.12 |
| 一级指标 | 对应层次模型 | CR值 | 指标权重 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 战力构成指标 | W1 | 0.04 | 0.25 |
| 装备属性指标 | W2 | 0 | 0.25 |
| 战力实施指标 | W3 | 0 | 0.25 |
| 战域环境指标 | W4 | 0.02 | 0.25 |
Table 13 CR values of first-level indicators
| 一级指标 | 对应层次模型 | CR值 | 指标权重 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 战力构成指标 | W1 | 0.04 | 0.25 |
| 装备属性指标 | W2 | 0 | 0.25 |
| 战力实施指标 | W3 | 0 | 0.25 |
| 战域环境指标 | W4 | 0.02 | 0.25 |
| 方案层指标 | a11 | a12 | a21 | a22 | a31 | a32 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 原始评分 | 8.5 | 7.8 | 9.2 | 6.5 | 8.0 | 7.2 |
Table 14 Original scores of scheme layer indicators
| 方案层指标 | a11 | a12 | a21 | a22 | a31 | a32 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 原始评分 | 8.5 | 7.8 | 9.2 | 6.5 | 8.0 | 7.2 |
| 扰动场景 | 调整后准则层权重(A1,A2,A3) | 调整后方案层总权重(a11,a12,a21,a22,a31,a32) | 扰动后综合得分 | 得分变化率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 原始场景 | (0.58,0.28,0.14) | (0.32,0.26,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.223 | — |
| A1+5% | (0.609,0.261,0.130) | (0.341, 0.268, 0.196, 0.065, 0.098, 0.032) | 8.265 | 0.51 |
| A1-5% | (0.551,0.299,0.150) | (0.309, 0.242, 0.224, 0.075, 0.113, 0.038) | 8.181 | 0.51 |
| A1+10% | (0.638,0.241,0.121) | (0.357, 0.281, 0.181, 0.060, 0.091, 0.030) | 8.307 | 1.02 |
| A1-10% | (0.522,0.319,0.159) | (0.292, 0.230, 0.239, 0.080, 0.119, 0.040) | 8.139 | 1.02 |
Table 15 Indicator scores after A1 adjustment
| 扰动场景 | 调整后准则层权重(A1,A2,A3) | 调整后方案层总权重(a11,a12,a21,a22,a31,a32) | 扰动后综合得分 | 得分变化率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 原始场景 | (0.58,0.28,0.14) | (0.32,0.26,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.223 | — |
| A1+5% | (0.609,0.261,0.130) | (0.341, 0.268, 0.196, 0.065, 0.098, 0.032) | 8.265 | 0.51 |
| A1-5% | (0.551,0.299,0.150) | (0.309, 0.242, 0.224, 0.075, 0.113, 0.038) | 8.181 | 0.51 |
| A1+10% | (0.638,0.241,0.121) | (0.357, 0.281, 0.181, 0.060, 0.091, 0.030) | 8.307 | 1.02 |
| A1-10% | (0.522,0.319,0.159) | (0.292, 0.230, 0.239, 0.080, 0.119, 0.040) | 8.139 | 1.02 |
| 扰动场景 | 调整后准则层权重(A1,A2,A3) | 调整后方案层总权重(a11,a12,a21,a22,a31,a32) | 扰动后综合得分 | 得分变化率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 原始场景 | (0.560,0.440) | (0.32,0.26,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.223 | — |
| a11+5% | (0.588,0.412) | (0.341,0.239,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.252 | 0.35 |
| a11-5% | (0.532,0.468) | (0.309,0.271,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.194 | 0.35 |
| a11+10% | (0.616,0.384) | (0.357,0.223,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.281 | 0.71 |
| a11-10% | (0.504,0.496) | (0.292,0.288,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.165 | 0.71 |
Table 16 Indicator scores after a11 weight adjustment
| 扰动场景 | 调整后准则层权重(A1,A2,A3) | 调整后方案层总权重(a11,a12,a21,a22,a31,a32) | 扰动后综合得分 | 得分变化率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 原始场景 | (0.560,0.440) | (0.32,0.26,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.223 | — |
| a11+5% | (0.588,0.412) | (0.341,0.239,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.252 | 0.35 |
| a11-5% | (0.532,0.468) | (0.309,0.271,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.194 | 0.35 |
| a11+10% | (0.616,0.384) | (0.357,0.223,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.281 | 0.71 |
| a11-10% | (0.504,0.496) | (0.292,0.288,0.21,0.07,0.10,0.04) | 8.165 | 0.71 |
| 扰动场景 | 调整后准则层权重(A1,A2,A3) | 调整后方案层总权重(a11,a12,a21,a22,a31,a32) | 扰动后综合得分 | 得分变化率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A2+10% | (0.562,0.308,0.130) | (0.315,0.247,0.231,0.077,0.098,0.032) | 8.259 | 0.44 |
| A2-10% | (0.598,0.252,0.150) | (0.335,0.263,0.189,0.063,0.113,0.038) | 8.187 | 0.44 |
Table 17 Indicator scores after A2 weight adjustment
| 扰动场景 | 调整后准则层权重(A1,A2,A3) | 调整后方案层总权重(a11,a12,a21,a22,a31,a32) | 扰动后综合得分 | 得分变化率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A2+10% | (0.562,0.308,0.130) | (0.315,0.247,0.231,0.077,0.098,0.032) | 8.259 | 0.44 |
| A2-10% | (0.598,0.252,0.150) | (0.335,0.263,0.189,0.063,0.113,0.038) | 8.187 | 0.44 |
| [1] | 王强, 马子涵. 欧美典型反舰导弹导引头现状及发展趋势分析[J]. 舰船电子对抗, 2024, 47(3): 1-6. |
| WANG Qiang, MA Zihan. Analysis of Current Situation and Development Trend of Typical Anti-ship Missile Seeker of Europe and America[J]. Shipboard Electronic Countermeasure, 2024, 47(3): 1-6. | |
| [2] | 范晋祥. 美国动能拦截弹红外成像导引头的发展分析[J]. 红外与激光工程, 2009, 38(1): 1-6. |
| FAN Jinxiang. Development Analysis of Infrared Imaging Seekers of Kinetic Kill Vehicles in America[J]. Infrared and Laser Engineering, 2009, 38(1): 1-6. | |
| [3] | 李召, 徐文旭, 王磊. 反装甲导弹导引头抗干扰能力与关键技术发展[J]. 兵工自动化, 2024, 43(3): 1-6, 11. |
| LI Zhao, XU Wenxu, WANG Lei. Anti-jamming Capability and Key Technology Development of Anti-armor Missile Seeker[J]. Ordnance Industry Automation, 2024, 43(3): 1-6, 11. | |
| [4] | 韩晓, 王晓楠. 反舰导弹导引头抗干扰技术发展趋势分析[J]. 舰船电子对抗, 2024, 47(4): 24-30, 54. |
| HAN Xiao, WANG Xiaonan. Analysis on the Development Trend of Anti-jamming Technology of Anti-ship Missile Seeker[J]. Shipboard Electronic Countermeasure, 2024, 47(4): 24-30, 54. | |
| [5] | 张然, 李源, 王昊, 等. 场景导向的雷达系统模型设计与仿真方法研究[J]. 图学学报, 2024, 45(2): 284-291. |
| ZHANG Ran, LI Yuan, WANG Hao, et al. Research on Scenario-Oriented Radar System Model Design and Simulation[J]. Journal of Graphics, 2024, 45(2): 284-291. | |
| [6] | 闫永玲, 张志峰, 张庆波. 电子对抗条件下地空导弹武器系统效能评估[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2014, 39(7): 78-81. |
| YAN Yongling, ZHANG Zhifeng, ZHANG Qingbo. Effectiveness Evaluation of Ground Air Defense and Anti-Missile System under Condition of Electronic Countermeasure[J]. Fire Control & Command Control, 2014, 39(7): 78-81. | |
| [7] | 张凯, 张邵宇, 杨东升. 红外制导导弹抗干扰能力仿真鉴定评估技术[J]. 上海航天, 2019, 36(4): 83-89. |
| ZHANG Kai, ZHANG Shaoyu, YANG Dongsheng. Simulation Test and Evaluation of Anti-Jamming Capability of Infrared Guided Missile[J]. Aerospace Shanghai, 2019, 36(4): 83-89. | |
| [8] | 李尚生, 张军涛, 韩建立, 等. 一种基于灰色关联-可拓学的雷达导引头抗干扰性能评估方法[J]. 兵器装备工程学报, 2021, 42(7): 19-24. |
| LI Shangsheng, ZHANG Juntao, HAN Jianli, et al. Method for Evaluating the Anti-Jamming Performance of Radar Seeker Based on Grey Correlation-Extenics[J]. Journal of Sichuan Ordnance, 2021, 42(7): 19-24. | |
| [9] | 岳地久, 何晶, 邹晓浩, 等. 反巡作战GPS干扰装备体系贡献率评估[J]. 电光与控制, 2021, 28(7): 21-25. |
| YUE Dijiu, HE Jing, ZOU Xiaohao, et al. Assessment of Contribution Ratio of GPS Jamming Equipment System in Operation Against Cruise Missiles[J]. Electronics Optics & Control, 2021, 28(7): 21-25. | |
| [10] | 庞维建, 马心意, 同志强, 等. 场景驱动的雷达型空空导弹抗干扰能力评估方法研究[C]∥第四届体系工程学术会议——数字化转型中的体系工程. 长沙: 国防科技大学系统工程学院, 2022: 53-64. |
| PANG Weijian, MA Xinyi, TONG Zhiqiang, et al. Research on Anti-jamming Capability Evaluation on method of Radar Air-to air missile Diven by Scenanios[C]∥The 4th Symposium on System Engineering-System Engineering in Digital Transformation. Changsha: School of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, 2022: 53-64. | |
| [11] | 牛得清, 伍友利, 徐洋, 等. 红外空空导弹抗干扰效能评估建模[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报, 2021, 47(9): 1874-1883. |
| NIU Deqing, WU Youli, XU Yang, et al. Modeling of Anti-jamming Effectiveness Evaluation of Infrared Air-to-Air Missile[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2021, 47(9): 1874-1883. | |
| [12] | 陆遥, 李东生. 基于威胁概率图的无人机作战场景模型设计[J]. 电子信息对抗技术, 2018, 33(5): 60-66, 79. |
| LU Yao, LI Dongsheng. Design of UAV Combat Scenario Model Based on Threat Probability Graph[J]. Electronic Warfare Technology, 2018, 33(5): 60-66, 79. | |
| [13] | 宁立跃, 胡仕友. 导弹导引头智能感知抗干扰性能评估方法研究[J]. 战术导弹技术, 2020(4): 119-124. |
| NING Liyue, HU Shiyou. Research on the Evaluation Method of Intelligent Sensing Anti-jamming Performance of Missile Seeker[J]. Tactical Missile Technology, 2020(4): 119-124. | |
| [14] | 周伟江, 柳立志, 王鑫, 等. 基于通用型半实物仿真平台的导引头复杂电磁环境构建及试验方法[J]. 航天电子对抗, 2020, 36(4): 46-50, 64. |
| ZHOU Weijiang, LIU Lizhi, WANG Xin, et al. The Construction of Complex Electromagnetic Environment and the Test Method of Seeker Based on Universal Semi-Physical Test Platform[J]. Aerospace Electronic Warfare, 2020, 36(4): 46-50, 64. | |
| [15] | 韩本刚, 董敏周, 于云峰, 等. 用基于指数标度的层次分析法评估红外导弹导引头抗干扰性能[J]. 西北工业大学学报, 2008, 26(1): 69-73. |
| HAN Bengang, DONG Minzhou, YU Yunfeng, et al. AHP Based on Exponential Scale for Better Evaluation of IR Seeker's Anti-jamming Performance during Missile Research Process[J]. Journal of Northwestern Polytechnical University, 2008, 26(1): 69-73. | |
| [16] | 邱梦奇, 徐志明, 艾小锋, 等. 基于AHP-PCA的雷达导引头抗干扰能力评估方法[J]. 太赫兹科学与电子信息学报, 2022, 20(3): 235-240. |
| QIU Mengqi, XU Zhiming, AI Xiaofeng, et al. Anti-jamming Performance Evaluation Method for Radar Seeker Based on AHP-PCA[J]. Journal of Terahertz Science and Electronic Information Technology, 2022, 20(3): 235-240. | |
| [17] | 唐善军, 王枫, 陈晓东. 红外导弹抗干扰能力指标体系和评估研究[J]. 上海航天, 2017, 34(4): 144-149. |
| TANG Shanjun, WANG Feng, CHEN Xiaodong. Anti-jamming Performance Index System and Evaluation of Infrared Missile[J]. Aerospace Shanghai, 2017, 34(4): 144-149. | |
| [18] | 魏保华, 孟晨. 基于变权的地空导弹抗干扰性能模糊综合评估[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2011, 36(7): 178-181. |
| WEI Baohua, MENG Chen. Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation Based on Variable Weight for Anti-jamming Capability of Anti-Air Missile[J]. Fire Control & Command Control, 2011, 36(7): 178-181. |
| [1] | Jinqiang WANG, Peilei XU, Ning LI, Chengbin CHEN. Integrated Design of Modular Software-Defined Missile Electronic Systems [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(5): 176-184. |
| [2] | Quan WEN, Haotian WANG. A Brief Analysis of the Application of Machine Learning in Intelligent Decision-Making Systems for Tactical Missiles [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(5): 32-46. |
| [3] | Rongling XIONG, Qing YANG, Yanwei ZHANG, Luyou ZHANG, Chunyi DUAN. Sensitivity Analysis of Kill Web Operational Effectiveness Based on Simulation Wargaming [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(4): 170-182. |
| [4] | You LI, Jiaxuan YANG, Zhijun JI. Study on Effectiveness Evaluation Method for Kill Chain Closure Under Evidential Reasoning Framework [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(4): 50-59. |
| [5] | Zhiwei HUANG, Gang WEI, Gang WANG, Changyun LIU, Xuan LIU, Haolun SUN. Research on Multi Attribute Fusion Threat Assessment Based on PFN and TOPSIS-GRA [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(3): 160-179. |
| [6] | Jing ZHANG, Bo WANG. Research on FDA-AWACS Countering Omnidirectional Amplitude-Comparison Monopulse Direction Finding Technology of Anti-radiation Missiles [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(3): 180-189. |
| [7] | Gencheng LI, Ling QI. Exploration of Reliability Qualification Test for Air-to-Air Missile with Dual matching Components [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(3): 201-207. |
| [8] | Miaomiao TIAN, Jinxian PENG, Dan GENG, Chao ZHAO, Xiao WANG, Jianqi QIN. Research on the Similarity Evaluation of Complex Electromagnetic Environment [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(3): 213-222. |
| [9] | Shisheng YU, Ke WANG, Yu SUN, Jinghua NIU. Research on Detection Methods for Countering Small and Micro Rotary-Wing UAVs at Surface-to-Air Missile Sites [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(3): 60-70. |
| [10] | Qiang GUO, Zhiyan ZHANG, Jian LI, Huiguo QIN, Xueming PENG. Review of Technological Development and Trends of Foreign Shipboard Missile Launchers [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(2): 1-12. |
| [11] | Lin GENG, Jinxi HAN, Jianguang JIA, Yihui LIN, Zhiwen XU, Rui ZHAO. Bayesian Regularization Design Method for Test Samples of Multi-sensitive Factor Anti-suppression Interference [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(2): 137-146. |
| [12] | Yongwei LU, Huan LIN, Yinbing ZHANG, Shihao SHAN, Shiju YANG. Radar Working State Assessment Based on Adaptive Augmented Bayesian [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(2): 155-162. |
| [13] | Haode LIN, Baoning LIU, Tao PAN, Zhe KONG. Design of a Sliding Mode Cooperative Terminal Guidance Law Against Maneuvering Target [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2026, 54(1): 129-137. |
| [14] | Ke YANG, Gang WANG, Jing ZHOU, Guanyu CHE. Digital Twin Operational Experiment System Architecture of Joint Air and Missile Defense [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2025, 53(6): 171-178. |
| [15] | Miaomiao TIAN, Jinxian PENG, Chao ZHAO, Dan GENG, Tuoyuan YI, Chunyong HAN. Electromagnetic Environment Adaptation Test for Radar Countermeasure Equipment [J]. Modern Defense Technology, 2025, 53(6): 179-186. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||