Dynamic multi-scale simulation for evaluating combat effectiveness against aerial threats
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/ntcs.2025.23627Abstract
The development and assessment of modern weapon systems require efficient and flexible simulation tools. This paper introduces a multi-scale discrete-event simulation framework designed to evaluate the dynamic combat effectiveness of weapon systems. The framework combines high-resolution and low-resolution models to address the complexities of real-world engagements while maintaining computational efficiency. Physical processes are encapsulated as modular state transition functions, allowing seamless integration of a multi complexity level modeling approach. The framework’s versatility is demonstrated through a case study analyzing the effectiveness of a tank weapon system against a fleet of drones. Non-deterministic methods such as Monte Carlo simulations for uncertainty quantification are used to evaluate probabilistic key metrics, such as projectile accuracy and lethality, providing insights into engagement dynamics and optimization of firing strategies. By leveraging a hybrid continuous/discrete approach and modular design, the framework enables comprehensive assessments of weapon effectiveness during an engagement, bridging gaps in traditional deterministic methodologies for both static and dynamic targets. Future enhancements will focus on optimizing sampling techniques for broader applicability of high-resolution stochastic simulations in modern combat scenarios.
Keywords:
Discrete Event Simulations, Julia, Monte Carlo, Uncertainty Quantification, Error budget, multi-scale simulationsHow to Cite
Share
License
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Ahner, D., & McCarthy, A. (2018). Response surface modeling of precision-guided fragmentation munitions. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, 17(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548512918811138
Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. (2017). Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Review, 59(1), 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671
Bunn, F. L. (1993). The tank accuracy model (Technical repoprt). ARL Army Research Laboratory.
Chusilp, P., Charubhun, W., & Koanantachai, P. (2014). Monte Carlo simulations of weapon effectiveness using Pk Matrix and Carleton damage function. International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics, 4(4), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJAPM.2014.V4.299
Deitz, P. H., Reed, H. L., & Klopcic, T. J. (2009). Fundamentals of ground combat system ballistic vulnerability/Lethality (Vol. 230). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Dominicus, J. (2021). New generation of counter UAS systems to defeat of Low Slow and Small (LSS) air threats (Technical report). Royal Netherlands Aerospace Centre NLR.
Driels, M. (2004). Weaponeering: Conventional weapon system effectiveness. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Green, M. & Stewart, G. (2005). M1 Abrams at War. Zenith Press.
Kunertova, D. (2024). Learning from the Ukrainian battlefield: Tomorrow’s drone warfare, today’s innovation challenge (Technical repoprt). Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zürich.
McCoy, R. (1999). Modern exterior ballistics: The launch and flight dynamics of symmetric projectiles. A Schiffer design book. Schiffer Publishing.
Molloy, O. (2024). Drones in modern warfare: Lessons learnt from the War in Ukraine (Technical report). Australian Army Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.61451/267513
Ndindabahizi, I., Vanhay, J., Lauwens, B., Lobo, V., & Gallant, J. (2022). A novel method for tank gun error budget analysis. In Proceedings – 32nd International Symposium on Ballistics, BALLISTICS 2022 (pp. 950– 960). DEStech Publications. https://doi.org/10.12783/ballistics22/36125
Penney, H. R. (2023). Scale, scope, speed & survivability: Winning the kill chain competition (Policy Paper Series, vol. 40). Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.
Przemieniecki, J. S. (2000). Mathematical methods in defense analyses. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/4.862137
Rackauckas, C., & Nie, Q. (2017). DifferentialEquations.jl – a performant and featurerich ecosystem for solving differential equations in Julia. Journal of Open Research Software, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.151
Seo, K. M., Choi, C., & Kim, T. G. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of shoot-look-shoot tactics using discrete event modeling and simulation. In J. H. Kim, K. Lee, S. Tanaka, & S. H. Park (Eds.), Advanced methods, techniques, and applications in modeling and simulation (pp. 352–360). Springer Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54216-2_39
Strohm, L. S. (2013). An introduction to the sources of delivery error for direct-fire ballistic projectiles. (Technical report ARL-TR-6494). Army Research Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA588846
Zhang, J. (2020). Modern Monte Carlo methods for efficient uncertainty quantification and propagation: A survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 13(5), Article e1539. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1539
Åkersson, B. (2022). Kranaattien ja maalialkioiden fysikaalisiin ominaisuuksiin perustuva vaikutusmalli. A Simplified Method for Computing the Lethality of Fragmenting Munitions Based on Physical Properties: (Suomenkielinen tiivistelmä aiheesta). Tiede ja ase, 2021(79).
View article in other formats
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.