A multi-objective optimization of ballistic and cruise missile fire plans based on damage calculations from missile impacts on an airfield defended by an air defense artillery network
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2019
A multi-objective optimization of ballistic and cruise missile fire plans based on damage calculations from missile impacts on an airfield defended by an air defense artillery network
This paper presents a new methodology for optimizing missile fire plan parameters in order to maximize the damage caused to an airfield by the impacts of ballistic and cruise missiles that leak through an air defense artillery network using weaponeering calculations. This new methodology models the damage to the airfield runway, fuel infrastructure, and parked aircraft caused by both unitary and submunition warheads carried by the ballistic and cruise missiles. It then uses the airfield damage models paired with an air defense simulation in a multi-objective optimization to find the non-dominated frontier of missile fire plan parameters that inflict the greatest damage to the different parts of the defended airfield. It demonstrates the methodology for three increasingly sized ballistic and cruise missile fire plans.
GormleyDM.Missile contagion: cruise missile proliferation and the threat to international security. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008.
2.
FeickertA.Cruise missile proliferation. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, 2005.
3.
PollackJ.Ballistic trajectory: the evolution of North Korea’s ballistic missile market. Nonprolif Rev2011; 18: 411–426.
4.
AhujaRKKumaAJhaKCet al. Exact and heuristic algorithms for the weapon-target assignment problem. Oper Res2007; 55: 1136–1146.
5.
WuLXingCLuFet al. An anytime algorithm applied to dynamic weapon-target allocation problem with decreasing weapons and targets, In: 2008 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Hong Kong, 1 June 2008, pp.3755–3759. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
6.
EnderTLeurckRFWeaverBet al. Systems-of-systems analysis of ballistic missile defense architecture effectiveness through surrogate modeling and simulation. IEEE Syst J2010; 4: 156–166.
7.
HollandOTWallaceSE.Using agents to model the kill chain of the ballistic missile defense system. Nav Eng J2011; 123: 141–151.
WadeBMChangP.New measures of effectiveness for the air and missile defense simulation community. Phalanx2015; 48: 49–53.
10.
GormleyDM.The neglected dimension: controlling cruise missile proliferation. The Nonprolif Rev2002; 9, pp. 21–29.
11.
BrownGCarlyleMDiehlDet al. A two-sided optimization for theater ballistic missile defense. Oper Res2005; 53: 745–763.
12.
DrielsMR.Weaponeering: conventional weapon system effectiveness. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004.
13.
ChabaiAJ.On scaling dimensions of craters produced by buried explosives. J Geophys Res1965; 70: 5075–5098.
14.
KigerSABalsaraJP.A review of the 1983 revision of TM 5–855–1 “Fundamentals of Protective Design” (nonnuclear). Vicksburg, MS: USAE Waterways Experiment Station, 1983.
15.
Ballistic and cruise missile threat. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: National Air and Space Intelligene Center, 2013.
16.
FordenG.GUI missile flyout: a general program for simulating ballistic missiles. Sci Global Secur2007; 15: 133–146.
17.
AndersonJD.Aircraft performance and design. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
18.
CarlucciDEJacobsonSS.Ballistics: theory and design of guns and ammunition. 2nd ed.Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, 2014.
19.
McCoyRL.Modern exterior ballistics: the launch and flight dynamics of symmetric projectiles. 2nd ed.Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military History, 2012.
20.
YuRSpieszPBrouwersHJH. Numerical simulation of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) under high velocity impact of deformable projectiles. In: 15th international symposium on interaction of the effects of munitions with structures, Potsdam, Germany, 16–20 September 2013, pp. 1–10. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
21.
Ben-DorGDubinskyAElperinT.Ballistic impact: recent advances in analytical modeling of plate penetration dynamics - a review. Appl Mech Rev2005; 58: 355–370.
22.
WadeB. A Comparison of three empirical methods for concrete penetration depth by a high speed ogive shaped projectile. In: proceedings of the 6th annual world conference of the society for industrial and systems engineering, Herndon, VA, 19–20 October 2017. The Society for Industrial and Systems Engineering.
23.
YoungCW.Penetration equations. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, 1997.
KumaranUSLimCTOngKCGet al. Effect of different nose-shaped projectiles on the high speed perforation of concrete. In: FurnishMDChhabildasLCHixsonRS (eds) Shock compression of condensed matter. Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 1999, pp.1233–1236.
26.
BeningRGKurtzMK.The formation of a crater as observed in a series of laboratory-scale cratering experiments. Livermore, CA: US Army Engineer Nuclear Cratering Group, 1967.
27.
BullJWWoodfordCH.Camouflets and their effect on runway support. Comput Struct1998; 69: 695–706.
28.
MaienscheinJL. Estimating equivalency of explosives through a thermochemical approach, preprint. In: 12th international conference symposium, San Diego, CA, 11–16 August 2002.
29.
Airfield damage repair operations. Washinton DC: Department of the Air Force, 2008.
30.
VanderplaatsGN.Multidiscipline design optimization. Colorado Springs, CO: Vanderplaats Research and Development, Inc., 2007.
