# A Novel LOS Decision Technique Reflecting 3D DTED for Modeling an Electronic Warfare Environment
## 5 Discussion and Conclusions  
In order to make certain judgments by simulating an electronic warfare environment, a simulation must be performed in real time so that appropriate and accurate judgments can be made even in changing environments. Therefore, accurate judgment, terrain data, and modeling of the object must be reflected, and fast computational algorithms are required for a real-time simulation. In this study, LOS judgment was made in an electronic warfare environment in which DTED was reflected. In this paper, we introduce an algorithm that could be calculated in less than 0.03 s for an approximately 2 million dataset. The terrain data used to verify the algorithm is a UTM coordinate system dataset that covers the entire Korean peninsula and shows 50% improved efficiency as compared with the existing interpolation method. The proposed algorithm has the advantage of being faster than other techniques because it only judges the sign, or bit-wise operation, by testing the points included in the LOS triangle region.  
Using this technique, LOS judgment for a desired area can be performed in real time for a situation in which a radar-equipped aircraft moves in a certain scenario. Using this sign counting method, the path from a jammer to an object can be accurately identified, and based on the method, the loss factor and J/S (jammer-to-signal ratio) can be calculated.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(x\) [\(m\)] & \(y\) [\(m\)] & \(z\) [\(m\)] \\ \hline Jammer Pos. & \(1.016\times 10^{6}\) & \(1.936\times 10^{6}\) & \(1.000\times 10^{4}\) \\ Object Pos. & \(1.048\times 10^{6}\) & \(2.462\times 10^{6}\) & \(1.207\times 10^{3}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Coordination of jammer and object.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **No.** & **Sign-Counting (s)** & **Interpolation (s)** \\ \hline
1 & 0.028065 & 0.039074 \\
2 & 0.028943 & 0.035718 \\
3 & 0.025162 & 0.03605 \\
4 & 0.023983 & 0.039235 \\
5 & 0.025463 & 0.040908 \\
6 & 0.025472 & 0.038587 \\
7 & 0.025862 & 0.043609 \\
8 & 0.025493 & 0.038507 \\
9 & 0.025863 & 0.038052 \\
10 & 0.02572 & 0.037427 \\ \hline \hline Average time & 0.0260026 & 0.038791 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Time comparison of sign counting and conventional method.  
**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, H.-K.J. and K.K.; Formal analysis, J.L. and K.K.; Investigation, C.L., H.H.L., and K.T.P.; Methodology, J.L. and K.K.; Project administration, C.L.; Resources, K.T.P.; Supervision, H.-K.J.; Validation, H.H.L.; Writing--original draft, J.L.; Writing--review and editing, K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This work was supported by Agency for Defense Development, Republic of Korea, under the contract \"Modeling and Simulation Based Design and Analysis Technologies for Electronic Warfare Systems\".  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Data Availability Statement:** Data available in a publicly accessible repository.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** There is no conflict of interest.