Model of the Optimal Maneuver Route DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85566

response to the attack, the unit had to provide the primary emergency treatment to the injured driver.

The commander of the attacked ALFA unit, using standard means to support decision-making (radio station and map), began to create an overview of the situation at the scene of the incident. He identified the position of the enemy based on the reports from his subordinates. He was well versed in the space distribution of his attacked unit, the attacking enemy, the open space in the shooting direction, the forest vegetation, and the relief of the terrain. The decision-making process to respond to the attack took him approximately 60 seconds. Its result was the approach maneuver of the assault group through a forest area to take up an advantageous fire position and to eliminate the enemy (see Figure 10). Executing the maneuver (428 m long) took 6 minutes and 50 seconds, including destroying the enemy and securing his positions.

Using the TDSS and its maneuver control system application, the commander of the attacked BRAVO unit defined the enemy's position and entered the calculation of the flanking maneuver approximately 30 seconds after the attack. Subsequently, the TDSS calculated the cost surface of passability in the area of the attack and proposed the fastest and safest route of the flanking maneuver to the position of the attackers with the use of mathematical algorithm. These calculations did not include visibility and the attackers' weapon range so that the system could plan the route in their position. Approximately 40 seconds after attack, the assault group started the flanking maneuver along the route in the direction of the enemy's position.

The route led to the position of the attackers through the forest vegetation passing into the open plain (see Figure 11). At the edge of the forest, the assault group took a hastily prepared firing position and almost immediately started destroying the enemy by fire. Then, it destroyed the enemy and secured his positions. The time to cover the route (369 m long) was calculated by the TDSS for 5 minutes and 3 seconds, which represented the difference of 36 seconds compared to the actual time of BRAVO unit. The delay of the real maneuver was caused by the destruction of the attackers by fire, which preceded the occupation of the target position itself.

#### 6.2 Evaluation of experiment No. 3

When comparing both variants of experiment No. 3, a significant difference can be observed in both the speed of orientation and the decision-making process of the

Figure 10. The movement route of the ALFA group (source: TDSS).

6.1 Experiment No. 3: Response to the attack

The flanking maneuver route in response to the attack (source: own).

The planned flanking maneuver route at a distance of more than 1 km (source: own).

Path Planning for Autonomous Vehicles - Ensuring Reliable Driverless Navigation…

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

94

The experiment was carried out in a broken and partially forested terrain. The motorized unit was moving along the paved road. When passing through a partially open area, it was attacked by shooting handguns from an almost perpendicular direction to the paved road from a distance of approximately 230 m. The incapacitated vehicle with a severely injured driver remained at the scene of the incident. The attacker was interpreted as a group of men armed with handguns. During the

vehicles, there is still a need for direct control in the terrain due to the accidental occurrence of microrelief forms and obstacles. The implemented model represents a basis for planning the movement route before the task fulfillment itself. The experiments realized have verified the function of the optimal movement route model when neither the reconnaissance group nor the autonomous vehicle was observed by the enemy. The total time of the UGV with the use of the TDSS to cover the route of maneuver was 67 minutes shorter than the real time of the BRAVO group movement with the use of the TDSS and 105 minutes shorter than the real time of

The TDSS calculation results are available in the order of seconds from the definition of all the tactical situation variables and the commencement of the calculation. This speed of calculation significantly minimizes time demands of the unit commanders' decision-making process. The functionality of the system has been verified in response to the enemy attacking a moving unit, the consequence of which was one incapacitated vehicle with a severely injured driver. The tactical situation of experiment No. 3 has been created precisely for the situation that demonstrates the most appropriate use of the TDSS. These are especially the situations with great time demands for creating an optimized decision, when friendly forces are endangered by the enemy. To achieve a successful solution with minimal death toll and loss of material, the decision must be taken as soon as possible after the attack of the enemy. The comparison of responses to the attack shows that the BRAVO group using the Maneuver Control System (MCS CZ) as part of the TDSS destroyed the attackers by 71 seconds faster than the ALFA group without the use of the TDSS. The optimal maneuver route model and the MCS CZ implemented in the TDSS represent the appropriate support tools for the command and control process in the military operation. They can also be used for planning a maneuver route of logistic support units and equipment if these units use UGVs for their activities in a military operation. Another possibility for using other types of autonomous vehicles

is in military amphibious operations. The MCS CZ can be easily adapted to

amphibious operations by adding a layer of the water surface. The standard part of the MCS CZ analyzes the terrain passability during the approach of the vehicle to the water surface. The added layer of the water surface will evaluate the character of the bottom along the coast as an approach route to the sea or to the river. The influence of direction and power of a water stream as a passability factor for amphibious vehicles as well as the standard or planned shipping lanes would also be included in this special water layer. The abovementioned MCS CZ update will reduce the risks of autonomous amphibious vehicles during the approach to the

the ALFA group without the use of the TDSS.

Model of the Optimal Maneuver Route DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85566

water surface and shipping.

97

Figure 11. The movement route of the BRAVO group (source: MCS CZ,TDSS).

attacked unit commander, as well as in the mode of maneuver execution. The difference in time of the commencement of the flanking maneuver to the enemy's position shows that the assault group of the BRAVO unit started more than 20 seconds earlier than the ALFA unit.

The terrain in the attacked area did not enable executing the direct attack, and, therefore, both units used the flanking maneuver. The maneuver route of the ALFA unit was displaced to the area where the commander expected the most advantageous and safest fire position. On the contrary, the BRAVO unit carried out the flanking maneuver using the fastest and safest route. The maneuver speed of the BRAVO unit created an effective pressure on the enemy's activity; he had to partially switch his attention to the damaged vehicle. At approximately 5 minutes and 40 seconds, after the commencement of the attack, the assault group of the BRAVO unit began firing on the enemy's position. The comparison of both responses to the attack shows that the BRAVO unit destroyed the attackers by 71 seconds faster than the ALFA unit. From the abovementioned facts, it can be stated that if the enemy did not abandon its position immediately after the commencement of the attack, he would be completely destroyed by rapid response of the BRAVO unit.
