Journal of the Korea Society for Simulation (한국시뮬레이션학회논문지)

The Korea Society for Simulation (한국시뮬레이션학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Effectiveness Analysis of K2 system with Weapon's unit cost

무기체계 단위비용을 고려한 K2 체계의 효과분석 방법 연구

  • Received : 2017.01.26
  • Accepted : 2017.05.22
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper analyses the effectiveness of Kill Chain (KC) and Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD), also known as the K2 systems, using monte carlo simulation. It is assumed that the K2 systems are consisted with unitary KC and multi-layered (upper-tier and lower-tier) KAMD. And each system has two or three arbitrary weapon systems and its combination makes 12 scenarios. Measures of effectiveness (MOE) of the K2 systems were defined as ratio of eliminated ballistic missiles from total threats. And total cost was calculated by number of weapon launched and its unit cost. MOE and total cost of the K2 systems were estimated using monte carlo simulation with a thousand iteration for each scenario. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed and the best candidate was selected using fixed effectiveness approach. As a result, the performances of KC are prime factor that affects both effectiveness and total cost of the K2 systems. It is also, acquired proper level of lower-tier KAMD to achieve desired defense effectiveness. For future work, it needs to be performed cost-effectiveness analysis based on practical specification and life cycle cost of weapon systems.

본 연구는 무기체계의 단위비용을 고려한 K2(KC와 KAMD) 체계의 효과분석을 수행하였다. 단일 KC와 다중(고층 및 저층) KAMD를 가정하고, 각 체계에 임의의 무기체계를 설정하여 각각의 조합에 따라 총 12개의 시나리오를 작성하였다. 효과도는 전체 탄도미사일 위협 수량 대비 감소된 탄도미사일 위협의 비율로 정의하였으며, 비용은 발사된 무장의 수량과 단위비용으로 계산하였다. K2 체계의 효과도와 총비용은 몬테카를로 시뮬레이션을 1,000번 반복하여 추정하였다. 각각의 시나리오를 대안으로 하여 비용대 효과분석을 실시하였고, 효과고정법을 사용하여 최적 대안을 선정하였다. 연구 결과 KC 능력이 K2 체계의 방어 효과와 총비용을 결정하는 가장 중요한 요소였으며, 적정 수준의 저층방어체계를 갖춰야 요구되는 방어 효과를 달성할 수 있음을 확인하였다. 향후 연구에서 실질적인 무기체계 제원과 수명주기비용을 고려한 비용대 효과분석이 이루진다면 더욱 현실적인 분석이 가능할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Cirincione, J. (2000) "Brief History of Ballistic Missile Defense and Current Programs in the United States", Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, Available at http://carnegieendowment.org/ (Downloaded February 01. 2017).
  2. Defense Agency of Technology and Quality (2016) Defense Science and Technology Glossary, Available at http://dtims.dtaq.re.kr:8084/dictionary.do (Accessed December 5. 2016).
  3. Department of Army (2002) FM 3-01.85 (FM 44-85) Patriot Battalion and Battery Operations, Washington D.C.
  4. Driels, M.R. (2013) Weaponeering: Conventional weapon system effectiveness, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
  5. Ender, T., R.F. Leurck, B. Weaver, P. Miceli, W.D. Blair, P. West, D. Mavris (2010) "Systems-of-systems analysis of ballistic missile defense architecture effectiveness through surrogate modeling and simulation", IEEE Systems Journal, 4(2), 156-166. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2010.2045541
  6. Hong, J, Y. Park, S.C. Park, Y. Kwon (2010) "A Technology on the Framework Design of Virtual based on the Synthetic Environment Test for Analyzing Effectiveness of the Weapon Systems of Underwater Engagement Model", Journal of the Korean Society for Simulation, 19(4), 291-299.
  7. Jaiswal, N.K. (2012) Military operations research: Quantitative decision making, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
  8. Balle, J.K.O. (2014.10.22.) "About the THAAD System", Defense Intelligence Report 2014, Available at http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/THAAD.html (Accessed Decenber 8. 2016).
  9. Krause, M.E. (2002) Attack Operations for Missile Defense, Occasional Paper No. 28, Maxwell AFB: Air University.
  10. Lee, K.-H., H.-P. Seo, Y.-S. Kwon, J. Kim (2015) "Analysis of the Flight Trajectory Characteristics of North Korea SLBM", Journal of the Korean Society for Simulation, 24(3), 9-16.
  11. Lee, S.-H., I.-C. Jeong (2006) "Optimal Allocation Model of KDX for Missile Defense", Journal of the Korean Society for Simulation, 15(4), 69-77.
  12. Matthew, M., W. Daniel (2015) Issue Brief: North Korea's Ballistic Missile Program, Available at http://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers (Accessed December 8. 2016).
  13. Park, J., S. Choi, Y. Kim (2015) "A Study on Simple Methodology of Distruction Effects Analysis 3 Dimensional Building Target's by Weapon Systems", Journal of the Korean Society for Simulation, 24(3), 89-96.
  14. Park, T.G., J.S. Um, J.K. Kim, Y.H. Son (2001) A Study on Cost-Effect Analysis Method of National Defense Investment Project, Seoul: Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.(박태감.엄종선.김종국.손영환. (2001) "국방투자사업 비용대 효과분석 방법론 연구"(연구보고서 무01-1727). 한국국방연구원)
  15. Rosenau, W. (2001) "Coalition Scud-Hunting in Iraq, 1991", Special Operations Forces and Elusive Enemy Ground Targets: Lessons from Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War, CA: RAND Corporation.
  16. Schneider, B.R. (2004) Counterforce targeting capabilities and challenges, Maxwell AFB: Air University.
  17. Shaver, R.D., Mesic, R. (1995) Calculating the Utility of Attacks Against Ballistic Missile Transporter-Erector-Launchers, CA: RAND Corporation.
  18. Tirpak, J.A. (2000) "Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess", Air Force Magazine Journal of the Air Force Association, Available at http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/pages/2000/july%202000/0700find.aspx (Accessed December 7. 2016).
  19. Wilkening, D.A. (2000) "A simple model for calculating ballistic missile defense effectiveness", Science & Global Security, 8(2), 183-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/08929880008426475
  20. Wiritz, J.J. (1997) "A Joint Idea: An Antisubmarine Warfare Approach to Theater Missile Defense", Airpower Journal, Spring 1997.