This work introduces PoKER, a novel probabilistic model engineered to optimize missile launch effectiveness in air-to-air scenarios, specifically within Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air combat. Unlike conventional Weapon Engagement Zone (WEZ) models that delineate zones based on static distances such as maximum, minimum, and no-escape ranges, PoKER applies machine learning to predict kill probabilities more accurately by integrating the stochastic behaviors of targets and missile miss distances. This model dynamically evaluates target behavior, greatly expanding the predictive capabilities of engagement analysis. By factoring in elements such as warhead lethality, target and shooter orientations, and the specific conditions of engagement, PoKER provides important insights into engagement dynamics and quantifies success probabilities. Consequently, it can potentially be an important tool for BVR air combat pilots, improving operational decision-making within this specialized combat domain.
LiAMengYHeZ. Simulation research on new model of air-to-air missile attack zone. In: 2020 IEEE 4th information technology, networking, electronic and automation control conference (ITNEC), Chongqing, China, 12–14 June 2020, pp. 1998–2002. New York: IEEE.
2.
DantasJPACostaANGeraldoD, et al. Engagement decision support for beyond visual range air combat. In: Proceedings of the 2021 Latin American robotics symposium, 2021 Brazilian symposium on robotics, and 2021 workshop on robotics in education, Natal, Brazil, 11–15 October 2021, pp. 96–101. New York: IEEE.
3.
LiWHShiJPWuYY, et al. A multi-UCAV cooperative occupation method based on weapon engagement zones for beyond-visual-range air combat. Def Technol2022; 18(6): 1006–1022.
4.
DantasJPACostaANGeraldoD, et al. Weapon engagement zone maximum launch range estimation using a deep neural network. In: BrittoAValdivia DelgadoK (eds) Intelligent systems. Cham: Springer, pp. 193–207.
5.
HerrmannJ.Air-to-air missile engagement analysis using the USAF Trajectory Analysis Program (TRAP). In: Proceedings of the AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, p. 3489. San Diego, CA, USA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
6.
YoonKSParkJHKimIG, et al. New modeling algorithm for improving accuracy of weapon launch acceptability region. In: Proceedings of the 29th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), pp. 6.D.4–1–6.D.4–6. Salt Lake City, UT, USA: IEEE.
7.
LingBBoLBingzhengS, et al. A cognitive study of multicolour coding for the head-up display (HUD) of fighter aircraft in multiple flight environments. J Phys Conf Ser2019; 1215: 012032.
DantasJPACostaANMedeirosFLL, et al. Supervised machine learning for effective missile launch based on beyond visual range air combat simulations. In: Proceedings of the winter simulation conference: WSC ’22. Singapore: IEEE.
10.
KuroswiskiARMedeirosFLLDe MarchiMM, et al. Beyond visual range air combat simulations: validation methods and analysis using agent-based models. J Def Model Simul. Epub ahead of print 27November2023. DOI: 10.1177/15485129231211915.
DantasJPAMaximoMROAYoneyamaT. Autonomous agent for beyond visual range air combat: A deep reinforcement learning approach. In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSIM Conference on Principles of Advanced Discrete Simulation (SIGSIM-PADS’23), pp. 13–24. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
ReinischFStrohalMStützP. Behaviour modelling of computer-generated-forces in beyond-visual-range air combat. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on simulation and modeling methodologies, technologies and applications, pp. 327–335. Lisbon: SCITEPRESS—Science and Technology Publications, https://www.scitepress.org/DigitalLibrary/Link.aspx?doi=10.5220/0011306600003274
KangYLiuZPuZ, et al. Beyond-visual-range tactical game strategy for multiple UAVs. In: 2019 Chinese automation congress (CAC), Hangzhou, China, 22–24 November 2019, pp. 5231–5236. New York: IEEE.
17.
YagciONikbayM. Evasive Maneuver Trajectory Optimization of an UCAV Against an Air to Air Missile. In: AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum, p. 3791. Chicago, IL: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
18.
KatukuriM. Target-interception feasibility assessment methodology for air-launched weapon systems. In: 2023 3rd international conference on range technology (ICORT), Balasore, India, 23–25 February 2023, pp. 1–5. New York: IEEE.
19.
QianCHanBTangY, et al. Missile attack zone fitting based on K-SAE-SVM. In: 2022 2nd international conference on networking systems of AI (INSAI), Shanghai, China, 14–15 October 2022, pp. 209–215. New York: IEEE.
20.
OzdemirMRCevherLErtekinS.AI-based air-to-surface mission planning using predictive launch acceptability region approach. In: 2021 international conference on military technologies (ICMT), Brno, Czech Republic, 8–11 June 2021, pp. 1–8. New York: IEEE.
21.
BirkmireBM.Weapon engagement zone maximum launch range approximation using a multilayer perceptron. Master’s Thesis, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, 2011.
22.
HuiYNanYChenS, et al. Dynamic attack zone of air-to-air missile after being launched in random wind field. Chin J Aeronaut2015; 28(5): 1519–1528.
23.
ShiZLiangXZhangJ, et al. Modeling and simulation analysis on three-dimensional air-to-air missile attack zone of two aircrafts. In 2018 IEEE CSAA guidance, navigation and control conference (CGNCC), Xiamen, China, 10–12 August 2018, pp. 1–5. New York: IEEE.
24.
YueLXiaohuiQXiaodongL, et al. Deep reinforcement learning and its application in autonomous fitting optimization for attack areas of UCAVs. J Syst Eng Electron2020; 31(4): 734–742.
25.
Harini VenkatesanRSinhaNK. A new guidance law for the defense missile of nonmaneuverable aircraft. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol2015; 23(6): 2424–2431.
26.
DantasJPAGeraldoDMedeirosFLL, et al. Real-time surface-to-air missile engagement zone prediction using simulation and machine learning. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC). Orlando, FL: National Training and Simulation Association (NTSA).
27.
KungCCChiangFL. A study of missile maximum capture area and fighter minimum evasive range for negotiation team air combat. In: 2015 15th international conference on control, automation and systems (ICCAS), Busan, South Korea, 13–16 October 2015, pp. 207–212. New York: IEEE.
28.
ScukinsEKleinMKroonL, et al. Monte Carlo tree search and convex optimization for decision support in beyond-visual-range air combat. In: 2023 international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS), Warsaw, 6–9 June 2023, pp. 48–55. New York: IEEE.
29.
AlkaherDMoshaiovA.Dynamic-escape-zone to avoid energy-bleeding coasting missile. J Guid Control Dyn2015; 38(10): 1908–1921.
30.
RyuHBaiJHTahkMJ, et al. No-escape envelope with field of regard constraint using gradient-based direct method for pursuit-evasion games. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci2018; 19: 675–684.
31.
ScukinsEKleinMKroonL, et al. Deep learning based situation awareness for multiple missiles evasion. arXiv:240210101 2024.
32.
YangRHuangFMGongHJ.Best attack position model for BVR multi-target air combat. Adv Mater Res2014; 1016: 511–515.
33.
GaoWYangZSunZ, et al. Real-time calculation of tactical control range in beyond visual range air combat. In: 2022 IEEE international conference on unmanned systems (ICUS), Guangzhou, China, 28–30 October 2022, pp. 76–80. New York: IEEE.
34.
GaoWYangZHuangJ, et al. Design of dynamic tactical control range in air combat based on three-party game. In: 2023 35th Chinese control and decision conference (CCDC), Yichang, China, 20–22 May 2023, pp. 3946–3951. New York: IEEE.
35.
SunYWangXWangT, et al. Modeling of air-to-air missile dynamic attack zone based on Bayesian networks. In: 2020 Chinese automation congress (CAC), Shanghai, China, 6–8 November 2020, pp. 5596–5601. New York: IEEE.
Aamir RazaMLiangW. Robust performance optimization of dual thrust rocket motor. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol2012; 84(4): 244–251.
38.
MaYGuoJTangS.High angle of attack command generation technique and tracking control for agile missiles. Aerosp Sci Technol2015; 45: 324–334.
39.
KumarVRSRaghunandanBNKawakamiT. Studies on internal ballistics of dual-thrust motors for nozzleless propulsion. In: 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit, Nashville, TN, 25–28 July 2010. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2010-6842
40.
ParkBGKimTHTahkMJ.Range-to-go weighted optimal guidance with impact angle constraint and seeker’s look angle limits. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst2016; 52(3): 1241–1256.
DantasJPAGeraldoDCostaAN, et al. ASA-SimaaS: advancing digital transformation through simulation services in the Brazilian air force. In: Simpósio de Aplicaço~es Operacionais em Áreas de Defesa (SIGE2023), p. 6. S̃ao José dos Campos, Brazil: Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica (ITA). https://www.sige.ita.br/edicoes-anteriores/2023/st/235455_1.pdf
43.
McKayMDBeckmanRJConoverWJ.A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics2000; 42(1): 55–61.
44.
HeltonJCDavisFJ.Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2003; 81(1): 23–69.
45.
HusslageBGRennenGVan DamER, et al. Space-filling Latin hypercube designs for computer experiments. Optim Eng2011; 12: 611–630.
46.
DantasJPASilvaSRGomesVCF, et al. AsaPy: a Python library for aerospace simulation analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGSIM conference on principles of advanced discrete simulation: SIGSIM-PADS’24, Atlanta, GA, 24–26 June 2024, pp. 15–24. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
47.
VergezPLMcClendonJR. Optimal control and estimation for strapdown seeker guidance of tactical missiles. J Guid Control Dyn1982; 5(3): 225–226.
48.
VergezPL.Tactical missile guidance with passive seekers under high off-boresight launch conditions. J Guid Control Dyn1998; 21(3): 465–470.
49.
BallRE.The fundamentals of aircraft combat survivability analysis and design. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003.
AbadiMAgarwalABarhamP, et al. TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems, 2015, https://www.tensorflow.org/
61.
BockSWeißM. A proof of local convergence for the Adam optimizer. In: 2019 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), Budapest, Hungary, 14–19 July 2019, pp. 1–8. New York: IEEE.
62.
KingmaDBaJ. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In: International conference on learning representations (ICLR), San Diego, CA, 7–9 May 2015.
BengioY. Practical recommendations for gradient-based training of deep architectures. In: MontavonGOrrGBMüllerKR (eds) Neural networks: tricks of the trade. Cham: Springer, 2012, pp. 437–478.
65.
ChenTGuestrinC. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining: KDD ’16, pp. 785–794. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: 10.1145/2939672.2939785.
66.
BalciO.Verification, validation, and testing. Handb Simul1998; 10(8): 335–393.
67.
FriedmanM.The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc1937; 32(200): 675–701.
