基于模糊综合评判的装备战场损伤等级评定方法

针对装备战场损伤评估问题,应用模糊综合评判的基本原理,建立了装备战场损伤等级评定模型,提出了基于二级模糊综合评判的装备战场损伤等级评定方法。该方法考虑了有关战场损伤的各种因素、因素权重和因素等级权重,结合合理的评价指标处理方法,使计算结果能够全面准确地反映装备战场损伤严重程度,为有效制定装备战场损伤处理方案提供基本依据。     

C~3I系统通信子系统检测

就Ｃ￣３Ｉ系统通信子系统的检测提出了检测模型及系统几个重要性能指标的检测与分析方法,并对某通信子系统的检测结果进行了讨论。     

银行办公自动化系统(BOAS)相对效率的技术经济评价

通过比较银行人工操作系统（ＢＭＷＳ）与银行办公自动化系统（ＢＯＡＳ）,建立了ＢＯＡＳ的投入指标量化模型以及产出指标量化模型。将产出指标集合分解为了系统服务强度、系统工作潜力、系统准确度和系统可靠性四个分指标。并给出了ＢＯＡＳ相对效率技术经济综合评价模型。     

高性能炸药综合性能的多维评估

基于欧几里得几何距离的概念,给出了一种炸药综合性能的多维空间评估方法。这种方法在确定炸药理想方案和最差方案的基础上,综合考虑了各种炸药方案与理想方案和最差方案的欧几里得几何距离,以此评估炸药综合性能。     

战损装备维修保障仿真及能力评估

阐述了利用仿真方法进行维修能力评估的重要性和必要性,分析了战场装备维修保障活动的主要内容,建立了基于计算机的装备维修保障过程仿真模型,提出了评估装备维修保障能力的几个指标,同时还给出了某次战斗装备损坏与维修保障能力评估的示例。     

军械保障指挥自动化系统效能评估指标体系研究

在对系统结构和功能进行详细分析的基础上,构建了某级军械指挥自动化系统效能评估指标体系模型,给出了各级指标的专家判断矩阵,对其一致性进行检验,得出了各评估指标的权重。     

一种固体导弹最大射程评定方法

本文提出了一种基于固体火箭发动机性能散布分析的固体导弹最大射程评定方法，将系统辨识、性能散布分析和统计分析有机结合，实用性强，对固体导弹试验鉴定技术研究具有重要意义。     

改革国防科技评价制度,完善国防科技评价体系

国防科技评价是国家科技评价的组成部分,是国防科技管理的重要内容,是构建军民融合创新体系的内在要求。分析了国防科技评价的基本内涵,阐述了构建国防科技评价体系的总体设想,提出了改革国防科技评价制度的几点思考。研究认为,改革国防科技评价制度,完善国防科技评价体,要加强国防科技评价理论研究,重视国防科技评价机构建设,充分发挥第三方评价的作用,建立多元化的国防科技评价体系,完善国防科技专家选择机制,建立健全国防科技评价指标,加快国防科技评价人才培养,优化国防科技评价环境建设。     

基于TRL的技术成熟度模型及评估研究

研究以色列区域导弹防御系统的发展动因、进展、影响与趋势,重点分析了以色列近程、中程、远程导弹防御系统的技术和能力,探讨了以色列区域导弹防御系统的影响及发展趋势。     

Flexible capacity strategy in an asymmetric oligopoly market with competition and demand uncertainty

This article studies flexible capacity strategy (FCS) under oligopoly competition with uncertain demand. Each firm utilizes either the FCS or inflexible capacity strategy (IFCS). Flexible firms can postpone their productions until observing the actual demand, whereas inflexible firms cannot. We formulate a new asymmetrical oligopoly model for the problem, and obtain capacity and production decisions of the firms at Nash equilibrium. It is interesting to verify that cross‐group competition determines the capacity allocation between the two groups of firms, while intergroup competition determines the market share within each group. Moreover, we show that the two strategies coexist among firms only when cost differentiation is medium. Counterintuitively, flexible firms benefit from increasing production cost when the inflexible competition intensity is sufficiently high. This is because of retreat of inflexible firms, flexibility effect, and the corresponding high price. We identify conditions under which FCS is superior than IFCS. We also demonstrate that flexible firms benefit from increasing demand uncertainty. However, when demand variance is not very large, flexible firms may be disadvantaged. We further investigate the effects of cross‐group and intergroup competition on individual performance of the firms. We show that as flexible competition intensity increases, inflexible firms are mainly affected by the cross‐group competition first and then by the intergroup competition, whereas flexible firms are mainly affected by the intergroup competition. Finally, we examine endogenous flexibility and identify its three drivers: cost parameters, cross‐group competition, and intergroup competition. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 64: 117–138, 2017