Devising methodological provisions for the comparative evaluation of variants for an armament sample in terms of military-technical level

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.176411

Keywords:

armament sample, military-technical level, pairwise comparison, taxonomy method, comparative evaluation procedure

Abstract

When setting a tactical-technical task on constructing a sample of armament, not only its characteristics related to purpose are considered, but its operational and technical, technological, economic, and other characteristics as well. The totality of characteristics defines the military-technical level of the armament sample. Typically, such variants of armament sample are considered that differ by the set of characteristics. For comparative estimation of armament sample variants in terms of military-technical level, it is necessary to apply appropriate methodical provisions.

Resolving the task on comparative evaluation of armament sample options was made possible by consistently solving four problems.

In solving the first problem, the decomposition of the totality of characteristics of an armament sample into the following three levels has been performed: properties, properties' components, indicators. The scientific result from the first problem is a methodological approach to comparative evaluation of armament sample options based on the consideration of the characteristics' significance when ranking the variants of an armament sample using a method of multi-criteria analysis.

Solving the second problem helped establish the order of staged expert estimation of coefficients for the properties' significance, properties' components, and indicators, using a pairwise comparison method, which makes it possible to take into consideration their impact on the military-technical level of an armament sample.

The result from solving the third problem of the current study is the algorithm for comparative evaluation of an armament sample using a taxonomy method. The reported algorithm makes it possible to rank the variants of an armament sample taking into consideration the significance of indicators that define their military-technical level.

Our decomposition of characteristics, using a pairwise comparison method for expert estimation of their significance, as well as a taxonomy method, has made it possible to obtain an integrated procedure for the comparative evaluation of an armament sample variants in terms of the military-technical level.

When solving the fourth task of this study, we have considered the order of application of the devised procedure using an example of comparative estimation of the military-technical level of variants for an anti-aircraft missile system.

The methodology could be used in substantiating a tactical-technical task on the development of armament samples.

Author Biographies

Aleks Zahorka, National Defense University of Ukraine named after Ivan Cherniakhovskyi Povitroflotskyi ave., 28, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03049

Doctor of Military Sciences, Professor

Center of Military and Strategic Studies

Pavlo Shchypanskyi, National Defense University of Ukraine named after Ivan Cherniakhovskyi Povitroflotskyi ave., 28, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03049

PhD, Professor

Anatolii Pavlikovskyi, National Defense University of Ukraine named after Ivan Cherniakhovskyi Povitroflotskyi ave., 28, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03049

PhD, Associate Professor

Center of Military and Strategic Studies

Andrii Koretskyi, National Defense University of Ukraine named after Ivan Cherniakhovskyi Povitroflotskyi ave., 28, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03049

PhD, Senior Researcher

Center of Military and Strategic Studies

Vasyl Bychenkov, National Defense University of Ukraine named after Ivan Cherniakhovskyi Povitroflotskyi ave., 28, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03049

Doctor of Technical Sciences, Senior Researcher

Center of Military and Strategic Studies

References

  1. Mironov, D., Evdokimov, D. (2012). Development of anti-personnel mine clearance robot with high serviceability and maneuverability for detection and deactivation of explosive objects. Science & technique, 2, 7–10.
  2. Buravlev, A. I., Brezgin, V. S. (2009). O kriterii sravnitel'noy otsenki ehffektivnosti kompleksov ognevogo porazheniya. Voennaya mysl', 7, 66–69.
  3. Ostankov, V. I., Kazarin, P. S. (2012). Metodika sravnitel'noy otsenki boevyh potentsialov voyskovyh formirovaniy i kachestvennogo sootnosheniya sil storon v operatsiyah. Voennaya mysl', 11, 47–57.
  4. Bychenkov, V., Koretskyi, A., Оksiiuk, O., Vialkova, V. (2018). Assessment of capabilities of military groupings (forces) based on the functional group “Engage.” Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 5 (3 (95)), 33–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2018.142175
  5. Seregin, G. G., Strelkov, S. N., Bobrov, V. M. (2005). Ob odnom podhode k raschetu znacheniy boevyh potentsialov perspektivnyh sredstv vooruzheniya. Voennaya mysl', 10, 32–38.
  6. Zahorka, O. M., Perepelytsia, V. A., Zaplishna, A. I. (2008). Metodychni pidkhody do vyznachennia boiovykh potentsialiv i koefitsientiv porivnian zrazkiv ozbroiennia ta viyskovoi tekhniky. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats TsNDI OVT Zbroinykh Syl Ukrainy.
  7. Korendovych, V. (2017). The use of multi criteria analysis for prioritization choice. Natsionalnoho universytetu oborony Ukrainy imeni Ivana Cherniakhovskoho, 2, 129–136.
  8. Brauers, W. K., Zavadskas, E. K. (2009). Robustness of the multi‐objective moora method with a test for the facilities sector. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 15 (2), 325–375. doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.352-375
  9. Romanchenko, I. S., Potyemkin, M. М. (2016). MOORA-kernel method and its using to make a multiple criteria alternatives comparison. Nauka i tekhnika Povitrianykh Syl Zbroinykh Syl Ukrainy, 1, 91–95.
  10. Balezentis, A., Balezentis, T., Brauers, W. K. (2012). MULTIMOORA-FG: A Multi-Objective Decision Making Method for Linguistic Reasoning with an Application to Personnel Selection. Informatica, Lith. Acad. Sci., 23, 173–190.
  11. Kundakcı, N. (2018). An integrated method using MACBETH and EDAS methods for evaluating steam boiler alternatives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 26 (1-2), 27–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1656
  12. Bisyk, S. P., Chepkov, I. B., Vaskivskyi, M. I., Davydovskyi, L. S., Korbach, V. H., Vysotskyi, O. M., Zakharevych, D. N. (2016). Theoretical assessment of the anti-mine resistance of the multi-purpose tactical car «Kozak-2». Weapons and military equipment, 9 (1), 26–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.34169/2414-0651.2016.1(9).26-31
  13. Baskakov, A. Ya., Tulenkov, N. V. (2002). Metodologiya nauchnogo issledovaniya. Kyiv: MAUP, 216.
  14. Tarasov, V. M., Tymoshenko, R. I., Zahorka, O. M. (2015). Rozviduvalno-udarni, rozviduvalno-vohnevi kompleksy (pryntsypy pobudovy v umovakh realizatsiyi kontseptsiyi merezhetsentrychnykh viyn, otsinka efektyvnosti boiovoho zastosuvannia). Kyiv: NUOU im. Ivana Cherniakhovskoho, 140–150.
  15. Beshelev, S. D., Gurvich, F. G. (1974). Matematiko-statisticheskie metody ehkspertnyh otsenok. Moscow: Statistika, 160.
  16. Beshelev, S. D., Gurvich, F. G. (1973). Ekspertnye otsenki. Moscow: Nauka, 160.
  17. Herasymov, B. M., Lokaziuk, V. M., Oksiuk, O. H., Pomorova, O. V. (2007). Intelektualni systemy pidtrymky pryiniattia rishen. Kyiv: Vyd-vo Yevrop. un-tu, 335.
  18. Saati, T., Kerns, K. (1991). Analiticheskoe planirovanie: organizatsiya sistem. Moscow: Radio i svyaz', 224.
  19. Brahman, T. (1984). Mnogokriterial'nost' i vybor al'ternativy v tehnike. Moscow: Radio i svyaz', 287.
  20. Yankevich, V. F., Kotsyubinskaya, G. F. (1996). Metod analiza ierarhiy: modifikatsiya sistemy ehkspertnyh otsenok i ih matematicheskoy obrabotki. Upravlyayushchie sistemy i mashiny, 12, 85–91.
  21. Plyuta, V. (1980). Sravnitel'nyy mnogomernyy analiz v ehkonomicheskih issledovaniyah: Metody taksonomii i faktornogo analiza. Moscow: Statistika, 151.
  22. Romanchenko, I. S., Zahorka, O. M., Butenko, S. H., Deineha, O. V. (2011). Teoriya i praktyka borotby z malorozmirnymy nyzkolitnymy tsiliamy (otsinka mozhlyvostei, tendentsiyi rozvytku zasobiv protypovitrianoi oborony). Zhytomyr: “Polissia”, 120–127.
  23. Oruzhie Rossii. Katalog. Vol. V. Vooruzhenie i voennaya tehnika voysk protivovozdushnoy oborony (1997). Moscow: ZAO “Voenniy parad”, 541.
  24. Ganin, S. M., Karpenko, A. V., Zhiznevskiy, V. I., Fedotov, G. V. (1977). Zenitnaya raketnaya sistema S-300. Sankt-Peterburg: Nevskiy bastion, 72
  25. Zenitnye raketnye kompleksy protivovozdushnoy oborony Suhoputnyh voysk. Ch. I-II (2003). Tehnika i vooruzhenie, 80.

Downloads

Published

2019-08-20

How to Cite

Zahorka, A., Shchypanskyi, P., Pavlikovskyi, A., Koretskyi, A., & Bychenkov, V. (2019). Devising methodological provisions for the comparative evaluation of variants for an armament sample in terms of military-technical level. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 4(3 (100), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.176411

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 3 (100) (2019): Control processes

Section

Control processes

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Aleks Zahorka, Pavlo Shchypanskyi, Anatolii Pavlikovskyi, Andrii Koretskyi, Vasyl Bychenkov

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The consolidation and conditions for the transfer of copyright (identification of authorship) is carried out in the License Agreement. In particular, the authors reserve the right to the authorship of their manuscript and transfer the first publication of this work to the journal under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY license. At the same time, they have the right to conclude on their own additional agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal, but provided that the link to the first publication of the article in this journal is preserved.

A license agreement is a document in which the author warrants that he/she owns all copyright for the work (manuscript, article, etc.).
The authors, signing the License Agreement with TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC, have all rights to the further use of their work, provided that they link to our edition in which the work was published.
According to the terms of the License Agreement, the Publisher TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC does not take away your copyrights and receives permission from the authors to use and dissemination of the publication through the world's scientific resources (own electronic resources, scientometric databases, repositories, libraries, etc.).
In the absence of a signed License Agreement or in the absence of this agreement of identifiers allowing to identify the identity of the author, the editors have no right to work with the manuscript.
It is important to remember that there is another type of agreement between authors and publishers – when copyright is transferred from the authors to the publisher. In this case, the authors lose ownership of their work and may not use it in any way.