Cost-effectiveness Ratio Calculation Method of Campaign Tactical Weapons

被引：0
|
作者：
Zhao X. [1 ,2 ]
Zhao X. [1 ,2 ]
Quan X. [2 ]
Xie X. [2 ]
Liu Y. [1 ,3 ]
机构：
[1] School of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing
[2] Hina Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, Beijing
[3] Beijing Institute of Technology Chongqing Innovation Center, Chongqing
来源：
Liu, Yan (liuyan@bit.edu.cn) | 1600年 / China Ordnance Industry Corporation卷 / 41期
关键词：
Ammunition consumption; Campaign tactical weapon; Cost-effectiveness ratio; Monte Carlo simulation; Particle swarm optimization;
D O I：
10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2020.S2.034
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Cost-effectiveness ratio analysis of campaign tactical weapons is an important means for scientific decision-making in weapon system selection, development, use and improvement. A method of cost-effectiveness ratio simulation calculation for campaign tactical weapons is presented. Considering range, accuracy, damage, penetration and procurement costs, a damage cost-effectiveness ratio model based on ammunition consumption calculation and a throwing cost-effectiveness ratio model based on payload delivery ability are established, which solve the problem that it is difficult to quantify the cost-effectiveness ratio of long-range guided rocket and tactical surface-to-surface missile due to different technological systems. The relationship between long-range guided rocket and tactical surface-to-surface missile is compared and analyzed from two aspects of damage cost-effectiveness ratio and throwing cost-effectiveness ratio. Some suggestions on coordinated development of long-range guided rocket and tactical surface-to-surface missile are put forward. © 2020, Editorial Board of Acta Armamentarii. All right reserved.
引用
收藏
页码：257 / 264
页数：7
相关论文
共 14 条
  • [1] WANG K S, ZOU Y X, LI Y D, Et al., Analysis on proportion of effectiveness and life cycle cost of weapon equipment, Journal of Armored Force Engineering Institute, 17, 3, pp. 55-58, (2003)
  • [2] WEI J Z, WANG G Y, GU S F, Et al., Cost efficiency analysis of attack UCAV, Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 35, 6, pp. 709-713, (2009)
  • [3] JING Y J, YANG X P, DU S F, Et al., Study on cost-effectiveness ratio calculation of medium-low altitude air defense weapon, Fire Control & Command Control, 35, 11, pp. 92-94, (2010)
  • [4] TONG M H, MA S Q., Cost effectiveness trade-off of air defense missile based on factor analysis and AHP, Aerodynamic Missile Journal, 11, pp. 77-81, (2016)
  • [5] ZANG X, SUN Y, DONG Z., Study of air-to-surface weapon selection based on generalized ratio of cost to effectiveness, Aircraft Design, 35, 4, pp. 78-80, (2015)
  • [6] RU W, GAO X G., Weapon target distribution based on cost-effectiveness, Fire Control & Command Control, 37, 2, pp. 57-60, (2012)
  • [7] XU X, ZHANG H X, LI S A., Battle effectiveness evaluation of surface-to-surface missile system based on ADC model, Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance, 25, 2, pp. 201-203, (2005)
  • [8] CHEN Q F, MENG Y H, LU H W., Missile operational application, (2014)
  • [9] LUO X B, LIU G Q., Operational effectiveness assessment of Army weapon system, pp. 196-198, (2007)
  • [10] ZHAO X, ZHAO X N, SHEN Q F, Et al., Application of particle swarm optimization algorithm in area target fire assignment, Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference On Modelling, Identification and Control, pp. 770-775, (2017)
12