Sniper Line-of Sight Calculations for Route Planning in Asymmetric Military Environments

  • Ove KreisonEmail author
  • Toomas Ruuben
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9991)


Situation aware route planning plays a key role in modern urban warfare. While planning routes to military convoys decision support systems have to take into account multiple environmental conditions to find safe routes and minimize the risk of convoy being attacked during mission. Considering that nowadays battles are fought in asymmetric conditions where red forces almost always have an upper hand then all systems aiding soldiers must try to take into account as much of those conditions as possible. This paper proposes a way how snipers locations and their line-of-sight can be added to dynamic threat assessment which in turn is an input for route planning. Risk minimization is done by using well known A* route planning algorithm where threat is presented as one of graph edge parameters that is in added to other parameters describing the surrounding environment.


Multi-objective optimization Military route planning Military environment risk assessment Route planning A* algorithm Situation aware route planning Sniper calculation Haversine formula Situational awareness Environment orientation 3D risk assesment 


  1. 1.
    Mora, A.M., Merello, J.J., Millan, C., Torrecillas, J., Laredo, J.L.T.: CHAC, a MOACO algorithm for computation of bi-criteria military unit path in the battlefield. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for Optimization (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruuben, T., Kreison, O.: Route planning in asymmetric military environments. In: Second International Conference on Future Generation Communication Technology (FGCT) (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoverd, T., Stepney, S.: Environment orientation: a structured simulation approach for agent-based complex systems. Natural Comput. 14(1), 83–97 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sinnott, R.W.: Virtues of the Haversine. Sky Telescope 68(2), 158–159 (1984)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lämmel, R.: Google’s MapReduce programming model—Revisited. Sci. Comput. Program. 70(1), 1–30 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zaharia, M., Chowdhury, M., Franklin, M.J., Shenker, S., Stoica, I.: Spark: cluster computing with working sets. In: Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing, vol. 10, p. 10 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Labreuche, C., Le Huédé, F.: MYRIAD: a tool suite for MCDA. In: EUSFLAT, vol. 5, pp. 204–209 (2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nilsson, N.: Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington (1982). 476 p.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Russel, S.J., Norwig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2009). 1152 p.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodicky, J., Frantis, P., Litvaj, O.: Validation of simulator supporting movement of small group or individuals in different terrains. In: 2012 15th International Symposium, MECHATRONIKA, Prague, pp. 1–3 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radio and Communication EngineeringTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations