Smart environment effectiveness analysis of a pursuit and evasion scenario

  • Kuei Min WangEmail author
  • Lin Hui
Original Research


The internet of things (IoT) has become a trend in interactive environments for providing information to decision-makers. Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) is a typical pursuit and evasion (PE) game that is a very complicated process. The ASW helicopter is assigned to execute the final phase of hunting the submarine with a torpedo attack. In most cases, a single helicopter is assigned to detect the submarine by dipping sonar, and then drops a torpedo. Once the dipping sonar goes off, uncertainty takes over, with the possible result of losing track of the submarine. To prevent this problem, using the IoT concept to create a wireless sensor network (WSN) in the area of interest for keeping ears on the evading submarine is a potential solution. The objective of this paper is to gain insights into this PE scenario so as to quantify the interaction result in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the helicopter in terms of hunting the submarine. Monte Carlo simulation has been developed as the analytical tool, and ANOVA was used to verify the significance of the output measure of effectiveness (MOE) before analysis. The results show that a slow, unalerted submarine has a very low chance of survival. An alerted submarine has very high chance of survival, but when the proposed sonobuoy WSN is in place, this situation benefitting the submarine will be reversed. The WSN has been proved to be effective in a single helicopter carrying out its ASW task.


WSN Sonobuoy Helicopter Submarine ANOVA Simulation 



The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology for partially supporting this research under contract no. MOST105-2221-E-032-061.


  1. Akyildiz IF, Su W (2002) A survey on sensor networks. IEEE Commun Mag 40(8):102–114. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anmarkruda V, Hjelmervika KT (2014) Modelling multistatic sonar performance. In: Prodeedings of the 37th Scandinavian Symposium on Physical Acoustics. Geilo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  3. Annati M (2008) Anti-submarine weapons-the state of the art. Mil Technol 32(8):78–91Google Scholar
  4. Armo K (2000) The relationship between a submarine’s maximum speed and its evasive capability. Naval Post-graduate School, Monterey, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong M (2014) Modeling short-range ballistic missile defense and Israel’s Iron dome system. Oper Res 5(26):1028–1039. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown G, Kline J, Thomas A, Washburn A, Wood K (2011) A Game-theoretic model for defense of an oceanic bastion against submarines. Mil Op Res 14(4):25–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen JY, Zheng HT, Xiao X, Sangaiah AK, Jiang AK, Zhao Y CZ (2017) Tianji: implementation of an efficient tracking engine in the mobile internet era. IEEE Access 5:16592–16600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Lautour NJ, Trevorrow M (2012) Initial study on expendable initial study on expendable for torpedo defence. Defence Technology Agency, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhanalakshmi N, Manjula RB, Sunilkumar SM (2015) A Survey on underwater target detection and tracking methods. Int J Technol Res Eng 2(10):2337–2341Google Scholar
  10. Didonato A (2007) Computation of the CEP and confidence intervals in bombing tests. US Naval Surface Warfare Center, DahlgrenGoogle Scholar
  11. Driels MR, Shin YS (2004) Determining the number of iterations for Monte Carlo simulations of weapon effectiveness. Naval Postgraduate School, MontereyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (2017) ASW Helicopters. Accessed 28 Jan 2017
  13. Grasso R, Cococcioni M, Mourre B, Osler J, Chiggiato J (2013) A decision support system for optimal deployment of sonobuoy networks based on sea current forecasts and multi-objective evolutionary optimization. Expert Syst Appl 40(10):3886–3899. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graves B, Whitman EC (1999) The Virginia class: America’s next submarine. Undersea Warf 1(2):2–7Google Scholar
  15. Gubbi J, Buyya R, Marusic S, Palaniswamia M (2013) Internet of things (IoT): a vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(7):1645–1660. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holler R (2013) The evolution of The Sonobuoy from World War II to the Cold War. Navmar Applied Sciences Corporation, WarminsterGoogle Scholar
  17. Hui L, Wang KM (2015) Torpedo performance markov model. Expert Syst Appl 42:9129–9136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobus PW, Yan PF, Barrett J (2002) Information management—the advanced processor build (tactical). Johns Hopkins APL Techn Digest 23(4):366–372Google Scholar
  19. Jones A (1973) The effect of submarine maximum speed on the hit probability of an air-launched Torpedo. Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment, DorsetGoogle Scholar
  20. Khan M (2007) Game theory models for pursuit-evasion games. University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  21. Ma J, Qiao Y (2017) Balancing user profile and social network structure for anchor link inferring across multiple online social networks. IEEE Access 5:12031–12040. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marszal J (2013). Implementation Of contemporary technologies in the modernization of naval sonars. Hydroacoustics 16:167–180Google Scholar
  23. Medhane DV, Sangaiah AK (2017) ESCAPE: effective scalable clustering approach for parallel execution of continuous position-based queries in position monitoring applications. IEEE Trans Sustain Comput 2(2):49–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson W (1988) Use of circular error probability in target detection. Electronic Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, United States Air Force, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  25. Operations Analysis Study Group (1986) Naval Operations Analysis. Maryland: The United States Naval InstituteGoogle Scholar
  26. Payne C (2006) Principles of naval weapon systems. Naval Institute Press, AnnpolisGoogle Scholar
  27. Polmar N (2001) The naval institute guide to the ships and aircraft of the us fleet. Naval Institute Press, AnnapolisGoogle Scholar
  28. PRABHA C (2013) Underwater target localization, tracking and classification. Cochin University of Science And Technology, CochinGoogle Scholar
  29. Qiu T, Zhang Y, Qiao D, Zhang X, Wymore ML, Sangaiah AK (2017) A robust time synchronization scheme for industrial internet of things. IEEE Trans Industr Inf 99:1–1. Google Scholar
  30. Sinha N, Alex JSR (2015) IoT based iPower saver meter. Indian J Sci Technol 8(19):1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thredgold JM, Lourey SJ, Vu HX, Fewell MP (2010) Simulation model of networked tracking for anti-submarine warfare. Maritime Operations Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  32. Tsvetkov PV (2011) Nuclear power—deployment, operation and sustainability. InTech. Google Scholar
  33. Walker JA, Ghalambor CK, Griset OL, McKenney DM, Reznick DN (2005) Do faster starts increase the probability of evading predators? Funct Ecol 19:808–815. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wanier B (2014) A modular simulation framework for assessing swarm search models. Monterey, CA, USA: Naval Postgraduate School, MontereyGoogle Scholar
  35. Washburn AR, Kress M (2009) Combat modeling. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Xiao X, Fu P, Hu G, Sangaiah AK, Zheng H, Jiang Y (2017 SAIDR: a new dynamic model for sms-based worm propagation in mobile networks. IEEE Access 5:9935–9943. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yick J, Mukherjee B, Ghosal D (2008) Wireless sensor networks: survey. Comput Netw 52(12):2292–2230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ManagementShih Chien UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Innovative Information and TechnologyTamkang UniversityYilan CountyTaiwan

Personalised recommendations