1
Beyond Line of Sight Defense Communication
Systems: Recent Advances and Future Challenges
Ruhul Amin Khalil, Member, IEEE, Muhammad Haris, and Nasir Saeed, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) communication stands
as an indispensable element within defense communication strate-
gies, facilitating information exchange in scenarios where tradi-
tional Line of Sight (LOS) methodologies encounter obstruction.
This article delves into the forefront of technologies driving BLOS
arXiv:2312.06491v1 [eess.SP] 11 Dec 2023
communication, emphasizing advanced systems like phantom
networks, nanonetworks, aerial relays, and satellite-based defense
communication. Moreover, we present a practical use case of
UAV path planning using optimization techniques amidst radar-
threat war zones that add concrete relevance, underscoring the
tangible applications of BLOS defense communication systems.
Additionally, we present several future research directions for
BLOS communication in defense systems, such as resilience
enhancement, the integration of heterogeneous networks, man-
agement of contested spectrums, advancements in multimedia
communication, adaptive methodologies, and the burgeoning do-
main of the Internet of Military Things (IoMT). This exploration
of BLOS technologies and their applications lays the groundwork
for synergistic collaboration between industry and academia,
fostering innovation in defense communication paradigms.
Index Terms—Defense Communication systems, beyond line
of sight, aerial relays, phantom networks, Internet of Military
Things
I. I NTRODUCTION
The global defense communication system market is poised
for robust expansion, forecasted to reach a valuation of US
$46.7 billion in 2023 and expected to soar to an impressive US
$120.62 billion by 2033, exhibiting a substantial Compound
Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 9.9% [1]. Comprising nearly
a quarter of the global aerospace and defense market, this
sector experiences heightened demand, owing to its reliance on
commercial wireless technologies and an escalating need for
satellite communication equipment. Regionally, North Amer-
ica commands market dominance with a 36.5% share in 2022,
driven by substantial national defense expenditures. Europe,
notably the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, account
for a significant 24.8% market share. The Asia Pacific region,
contributing 28% in 2022, displays promising growth due to
substantial government investments in military and defense
equipment [1]. While exhibiting slower growth, the Middle
East and Africa are anticipated to show improvement by the
forecast’s end. Noteworthy efforts in modernizing defense
communication systems include the United States’ substantial
investments in new handheld man-pack radios. With its robust
Ruhul Amin Khalil and Nasir Saeed are with the Department of
Electrical and Communication Engineering, UAE University, Al-Ain 15551,
UAE e-mail: ruhulamin@uaeu.ac.ae; mr.nasir.saeed@ieee.org.
Muhammad Haris is with the Department of Electrical En-
gineering, Hanyang University, Ansan 15588, South Korea (e-mail:
haris737@hanyang.ac.kr).
industrial base, Germany stands prominently in Europe’s mil-
itary communication market. Simultaneously, China’s marine
communication systems industry foresees considerable expan-
sion, fueled by coastal security demands and the growth of
marine commerce operations [1]. In a categorical breakdown,
the sale of defense communication satellites exhibits a notable
uptick, propelled by escalating tensions along international
borders. The market’s future trajectory hinges on strategic
collaborations, continuous technological innovations, and the
integration of the Internet of Things (IoT) [2]. Manufacturers
have substantial opportunities for scaling their businesses
by harnessing advanced communication systems, low-latency
wireless links, and IoT integration, presenting a dynamic
landscape for growth in the defense communication sector.
Communication systems are a linchpin within military oper-
ations, enabling seamless information exchange among diverse
units within the armed forces. Effective communication tran-
scends mere necessity in the intricate threatening of defense;
it assumes the mantle of a strategic imperative, wielding
profound influence over the success of tactical missions and
the overarching operational readiness [3]. This specialized
communication domain grapples with challenges far beyond
those encountered in civilian networks, confronting distinc-
tive obstacles such as Electronic Warfare (EW), Command
and Control Warfare (C2W), and the difficulties inherent in
beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) communication, as depicted in
Figure 1. The complexities inherent in defense communica-
tion amplify its strategic significance as the core enabling
coordinated military action in the face of evolving threats and
operational landscapes. Moreover, the multifaceted nature of
military forces, spanning Ground, Water, and Air domains,
introduces an additional stratum of complexity to defense
communication. Serving as the sinew-binding coordinated
military action, it equips forces to adapt, strategize, and prevail
in the face of diverse, ever-evolving threats [4]. Defense
communication, thus, emerges as the quintessential backbone,
empowering troops to navigate the complexities of modern
warfare and emerge triumphant amidst the dynamism of global
defense landscapes.
Recently, five significant trends have reshaped the landscape
of defense communications. First, space technologies are ele-
vated in defense operations, where space-based connectivity is
pivotal for various defense applications [5], [6]. The military’s
investments prioritize purpose-built and resilient space systems
functioning across diverse transports and orbits, envisioning
space as a potential frontline in emerging conflicts. Secondly,
the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) increasingly embraces
multi-constellation, multi-transport, and software-defined net-
works, with a focus on low earth orbit (LEO) systems for their

Fig. 1. Illustraion of a BLOS defense communication system.
resilience and low latency [7]. A future outlook envisions a
fusion of LEO and geostationary satellites orchestrated via
software-defined networking. Thirdly, pivotal efforts center
around developing Joint All-Domain Command and Control
(JADC), Project Convergence, and Project Overmatch. The
objective is establishing a unified command and control system
spanning diverse military branches, emphasizing collaboration
with industry stakeholders. The fourth trend underscores the
escalating reliance on commercial technology within defense
networks, integrating commercial innovations and off-the-shelf
products into space-based networks to bolster resilience [7].
Finally, standalone 5G deployments tailored for the DoD
offer high-speed, secure, and private wireless communication
at facilities, featuring a zero-trust security architecture and
the capability to run edge applications employing artificial
intelligence and machine learning. These trends align with
strategic objectives to address end-user needs, foster collabora-
tion, and explore commercial technologies to enhance defense
communication capabilities.
While defense communication has attracted considerable
scholarly focus, investigations span cognitive radios [8],
blockchain-based privacy preservation [9], dynamic spectrum
anti-jamming communication [10], Internet of Radars, joint
Radar communication [11], and BLOS phantom networks
[12]. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, a
comprehensive examination of BLOS communication within
defense communication systems is absent in existing literature.
Therefore, this paper aims to bridge this gap by delving into
state-of-the-art technologies and strategies explicitly tailored
for BLOS scenarios in military contexts.
2
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First,
we present state-of-the-art technologies in BLOS defense com-
munication, encompassing phantom networks, nanonetworks,
satellite networks, and aerial relays. Following this, a compre-
hensive case study illustrating UAVs for BLOS route planning
in defense communication is presented. Subsequently, emerg-
ing challenges and future research directions are delineated,
culminating in the conclusive section of this article.
II. C UTTING E DGE T ECHNOLOGIES FOR BLOS D EFENSE
C OMMUNICATION S YSTEMS
Defense communication encompasses critical components
such as military radios, C2W, EW, secure transmission, and
alert measurement systems. Direct wave propagation, reliant
on an unobstructed line of sight (LOS) between the Source
(Transmitter) and Destination (Receiver), stands as an optimal
solution for information exchange where frequencies below
approximately 50 MHz favor surface or ground wave propa-
gation [13]. Nevertheless, higher frequencies face significant
attenuation, necessitating ducting for signal propagation across
substantial distances within two Troposphere layers. Moreover,
LOS communication effectiveness can be hindered by obsta-
cles like the Earth’s curvature and natural or man-made imped-
iments, requiring the adoption of BLOS communication tech-
niques [3]. Military domains extensively rely on various BLOS
techniques, including phantom networks, nanonetworks, satel-
lite networks, and aerial relays. Phantom networks provide an
on-demand aerial communication method among out-of-range
devices, while nanonetworks comprise nano nodes within at-
omized aqueous mists, forming the basis of phantom networks.

Historically, balloons, drones, and unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) facilitate BLOS communication. Despite their utility,
these BLOS techniques encounter challenges. Table I offers a
comparative overview of BLOS techniques, highlighting key
features and associated challenges.
A. Phantom Networks
Phantom networks represent an innovative cornerstone in
BLOS communication strategies for defense and military
applications, signaling a paradigm shift with on-demand, in-
tangible aerial connectivity crucial where traditional LOS com-
munication falls short [12]. Their adaptability and responsive-
ness prove indispensable in dynamic and challenging military
environments, fortifying communication effectiveness and en-
hancing the versatility of military radio systems. For instance,
phantom MESH combines state-of-the-art communication and
advanced jamming technologies, employing MESH radios, a
token passing-based mobile ad-hoc network [14]. This self-
healing network architecture establishes robust RF paths in
challenging environments, crucial for operations beyond direct
visual or radio contact. The iMESH suite within this solu-
tion, including iMESH KRIP and iHIVE, ensures flexibility,
security, and rapid deployability. Other phantom technologies,
like the Eagle 108 Drone Jammer and EW1600 military tac-
tical satellite communication (SATCOM) jammer, neutralize
threats from unauthorized drones, ensuring safety and security
in BLOS scenarios. Blu Wireless introduces PhantomBlu,
a groundbreaking V-Band radio node optimized for BLOS
military communications, featuring dynamic mesh networking
capabilities with multi-gigabit data rates suitable for diverse
BLOS scenarios [15]. This system efficiently processes high-
bandwidth sensor data and video at the tactical edge, providing
covert and resilient communication for ground forces operating
in BLOS environments. PhantomBlu’s ongoing advancements
aim to include W-band transceivers, aligning it with IEEE 6G
standards and positioning it as a versatile BLOS solution for
near-peer tactical operations.
B. Nanonetworks
Nanonetworks constitute a pioneering technological founda-
tion in BLOS communication for defense and military applica-
tions [16]. Operating at the nanoscale, these networks employ
nano nodes suspended within atomized aqueous mists, provid-
ing essential sophistication for robust BLOS communication.
Their intricacies offer a nuanced solution for surmounting
environmental obstacles in dynamic operational theatres [17].
Their nanoscale components significantly enhance flexibility
and adaptability, enabling effective communication in scenar-
ios where traditional methods falter [18]. Moreover, nanotech-
nology’s potential impact on BLOS military applications ex-
tends to medical care and materials advancements. Specifically
tailored for BLOS scenarios, military nanotechnology focuses
on improving body Armor effectiveness. Technologies such as
Silica Si , Titanium dioxide Ti O2 , and Silicon dioxide Si O2
nanoparticles. These nanoparticles form the nanodevices that
aim to offer soldiers lightweight yet resilient protection in
situations where direct visual or radio contact is obstructed
3
[19]. Furthermore, nanotechnology advances sensors, present-
ing smaller, more sensitive alternatives critical for BLOS
operations. Examples include highly sensitive infrared thermal
sensors, compact accelerometers with GPS for motion and
position sensing, miniature high-performance camera systems,
and biochemical sensors, illustrating the adaptability of nano-
materials in augmenting military sensor capabilities in BLOS
environments. Integrating nanotechnology into BLOS robotic
systems and control mechanisms further enhances efficiency,
emphasizing nanotechnology’s transformative influence on
BLOS military technologies.
C. Satellites-based BLOS Communication
Safeguarding communication across vast and challenging
terrains, satellite-based defense communication stands as a
linchpin in BLOS operations, ensuring continuous connectiv-
ity during critical military missions and protecting sensitive
data through encrypted transmission [20], [21]. However,
persistent challenges like signal latency and susceptibility to
electronic warfare underscore the need for ongoing techno-
logical advancements. Key innovations, including emerging
LEO constellations and adaptive communication protocols, are
poised to augment the resilience and effectiveness of modern
military communication strategies [22]. The Defense Satellite
Communication System (DSCS), serving as a critical compo-
nent of global satellite communications for the U.S. military,
comprises high-capacity military satellites supporting diverse
defense entities with its six-channel transponder system [23].
This constellation, known for its secure, nuclear-hardened,
anti-jam, and high-data-rate communication, is integral for
long-haul communications in contested environments. Other
satellite-based defense communication networks such as SAT-
COMBw in Germany, Syracuse IV in France, and Skynet
in the U.K. serve as critical communication relays in BLOS
operations, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity in military
scenarios [24]. These systems employ encrypted data trans-
mission protocols, ensuring the confidentiality and integrity of
defense communications. Ongoing advancements are targeted
to address challenges such as signal latency and susceptibility
to electronic warfare, aiming to bolster the effectiveness and
resilience of modern military communication strategies.
D. Aerial Relays
This BLOS communication technology involves both
manned aircraft and UAVs serving as airborne relays, estab-
lishing and maintaining communication links over extended
distances [25]. Manned aircraft with advanced communication
systems act as crucial nodes in military communication net-
works, enhancing versatility and coverage in BLOS commu-
nication. Meanwhile, UAVs present a dynamic and adaptable
solution, adept at navigating challenging environments and
swiftly deploying to establish communication links in con-
tested airspace [26]. Using tethered drones, tethered balloons,
and floating balloons further diversifies the aerial relay land-
scape, offering unique solutions for sustained communication
in diverse operational scenarios [27]. These aerial relays
strategically overcome LOS limitations, ensuring continuous
 4

TABLE I
VARIOUS BLOS COMMUNICATION NETWORKS AND CHALLENGES .

BLOS Networks Applications Challenges

Phantom Networks Facilitates seamless communication be-
tween military units in urban environ-
ments with complex structures to navi-
gate obstacles in BLOS scenarios
Nanonetworks Provides covert surveillance in hostile
BLOS environments, enabling discreet
information gathering without compro-
mising operational security
Satellite-based Networks Supports worldwide military operations
by ensuring continuous communication
and data exchange, even in remote or
contested areas
Aerial Relays Provides rapid deployment scenarios
for quick and flexible communication
setups and provides BLOS connectivity
during fast-paced operations
Dynamic topology management with
rapidly changing terrains and scenarios,
such as urban environments, where net-
work topology needs continuous adjust-
ments for optimal communication
Limited energy to sustain continu-
ous communication in resource-limited
BLOS environments
High time delay due to large trans-
mission distance, impacting real-time
communication in critical military op-
erations
Suffers from communication disrup-
tions caused by atmospheric interfer-
ence or potential vulnerability due to
electronic warfare

and resilient communication support for military operations.
The following discusses prospective aerial relays for BLOS
communication in defense communication systems.
1) Manned Aircrafts:: Manned aircraft are pivotal and
multifaceted in BLOS communication within defense and
military applications. Equipped with advanced communica-
tion systems, these aircraft act as airborne relays, forming
crucial links over extended distances. Their versatility goes
beyond conventional communication, enabling strategic de-
ployment across diverse operational scenarios. These aircraft
offer unparalleled coverage and adaptability, functioning as
vital nodes within military communication networks. Beyond
their role as relays, they contribute significantly to intelli-
gence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) efforts, elevat-
ing the overall situational awareness of military operations.
The human-operated nature of manned aircraft introduces
dynamic decision-making, allowing real-time adjustments to
communication strategies in response to the evolving needs of
complex military environments. Manned aircraft are effective
conduits for BLOS communication and stand as cornerstones
in comprehensively integrating communication, surveillance,
and strategic capabilities within defense operations.
2) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs):: Heralded as trans-
formative assets in modern military strategies, UAVs epitomize
adaptability and innovation in BLOS communication. These
unmanned systems, purpose-built for navigating challenging
environments, contribute significantly to the military’s commu-
nication capabilities where traditional methods prove imprac-
tical. UAVs bring unparalleled flexibility to BLOS scenarios,
rapidly deploying to establish communication links in con-
tested airspace, inaccessible terrains, or high-risk zones [28],
[29]. Beyond their role as communication relays, UAVs con-
tribute extensively to intelligence gathering and surveillance,
enhancing situational awareness in dynamic military land-
scapes. The autonomous nature of UAVs allows for swift and
agile responses to changing operational demands, showcasing
their pivotal role in real-time decision-making processes. As
integral components of military BLOS strategies, UAVs bolster
communication resilience and embody a transformative force
in enhancing the agility and effectiveness of defense operations
in an evolving and complex security landscape.
3) Tethered Drones:: Tethered Drones emerge as a dis-
tinctive and versatile solution within BLOS communication
for defense and military applications. These drones, tethered
to a fixed point, present a unique capability for sustained com-
munication, making them suitable for prolonged surveillance
and communication relay tasks. Tethering enables prolonged
flight duration and ensures a stable platform, contributing to
persistent and reliable communication support. In military sce-
narios, tethered drones offer adaptability in various operational
contexts, providing a dynamic vantage point for surveillance
and communication even in challenging environments. Their
ability to hover at specific altitudes for extended periods makes
them valuable assets for maintaining continuous communi-
cation links in complex, dynamic military theatres. Beyond
their role in communication, tethered drones also contribute to
intelligence gathering, surveillance, and monitoring, showcas-
ing their multifaceted utility in enhancing military capabilities
beyond BLOS communication resilience. The strategic use
of tethered drones underscores their significance as agile and
enduring tools in modern defense communication strategies.
4) Tethered Balloons:: Tethered Balloons present a dis-
tinctive and strategically valuable solution within BLOS com-
munication for defense and military applications. Tethered
securely to the ground, these balloons serve as stable, elevated
platforms for improved signal propagation. Tethering provides
a cost-effective solution and ensures enduring and consistent
communication links over expansive areas. In military ap-

plications, tethered balloons can be strategically positioned
to enhance coverage and connectivity in specific operational
zones, offering a dynamic and adaptable means of estab-
lishing communication in challenging terrains. Their stability,
adaptability, and capacity to operate at various altitudes make
them valuable assets for maintaining communication resilience
in diverse and dynamic military environments. Beyond their
role in communication, tethered balloons contribute to intel-
ligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance efforts, showcasing
their versatility as integral components of military operations.
With their enduring presence and strategic positioning, the
tethered balloons exemplify a nuanced approach to enhancing
BLOS communication capabilities, providing a reliable and
comprehensive solution in modern defense scenarios.
5) Floating Balloons:: Floating Balloons, equipped with
communication payloads, represent an innovative and dynamic
solution within the realm of BLOS communication for defense
and military applications. These balloons traverse the skies
at high altitudes, offering a mobile and adaptable platform
for maintaining communication links in challenging terrains.
Their mobility and ability to operate at varying altitudes
render floating balloons effective tools for ensuring continuous
communication coverage across diverse operational scenarios.
In military applications, these balloons contribute significantly
to establishing resilient and expansive BLOS communication
networks, particularly in remote or inaccessible areas where
traditional methods may fall short. The innovative approach of
floating balloons aligns with the evolving demands of modern
warfare, offering a strategic advantage by providing flexible
and robust communication capabilities. Beyond their role in
communication, floating balloons contribute to intelligence
gathering, reconnaissance, and surveillance efforts, showcas-
ing their multifaceted utility in enhancing military capabil-
ities beyond BLOS communication resilience. The strategic
deployment of floating balloons underscores their significance
as forward-looking and versatile assets in the ever-evolving
landscape of defense communication strategies.
III. C ASE S TUDY: UAV S FOR BLOS ROUTE P LANNING IN
D EFENSE C OMMUNICATION S YSTEMS
As discussed in the previous section, in defense commu-
nication systems, UAVs play a crucial role in addressing
BLOS challenges where various scenarios are marked by
obstructed direct visual or radio contact, demanding innovative
solutions for establishing robust communication links. As
agile and adaptable platforms, UAVs navigate complex terrains
and operate amidst adversarial threats, overcoming hurdles in
BLOS environments [30]. Strategic deployment of UAVs for
BLOS route planning becomes essential, ensuring optimized
paths through intricate operational environments to enhance
communication reliability and mission success. Integrating
cutting-edge technologies like path optimization techniques
into UAV-based BLOS route planning can further enhance
the efficacy [31]. Path planning for UAVs in challenging
environments presents a real-world optimization challenge,
requiring an optimal planner for efficient navigation. It in-
volves conceptualizing path-planning missions as optimization
5
problems, where evolutionary computation emerges as an effi-
cient method for addressing such challenges. Nature-inspired
optimization techniques such as particle swarm optimization
(PSO) can dynamically optimize UAV flight paths, which is
crucial in navigating radar-laden war zones. This integration
fortifies defense communication systems, enhancing agility, re-
sponsiveness, and security, enabling seamless communication
links across challenging distances, significantly contributing to
mission success [32]. This section focuses on UAV path plan-
ning in radar-threat war zones, framing it as an optimization
problem.
We focus on path planning for a UAV within a chal-
lenging radar-limited environment, where deterministic search
algorithms prove impractical due to vast search space com-
plexities. The presence of regularly positioned circular radar
threats, confined within predetermined global limits, further
complicates the optimization process. The approach prioritizes
optimizing UAV performance within a predefined 3D terrain
environment. Efficient path planning for UAVs in military
operations, between start and target points, is crucial for re-
duced time and enhanced mission effectiveness. The planning
process involves three interlinked phases: (1) establishing cost
and constraint functions, (2) aligning the digital map with
the mission environment, and (3) optimizing and refining the
flight route. In combat scenarios, UAV navigation encounters
challenges from diverse danger sources such as topography,
radars, artillery, and no-fly zones. Considering the UAV’s
physical constraints, the planned route must navigate these
obstacles to ensure safe traversal and collision avoidance.
Addressing the multitude of objectives and constraints arising
from various risks and limitations presents challenges in UAV
route planning [33]. Developing an effective planner is crucial
to handling the complexities of multi-objective limited UAV
route planning, particularly in intricate situations, as shown in
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. An Illustration of UAVs path planning in military operations.
In UAV path planning, PSO significantly optimizes each
particle’s path within predefined constraints and initial veloc-
ities. Despite their inclination to move towards their velocity
vectors, particles in PSO abide by swarm constraints, ex-

changing information and retaining their previous best position
alongside their current position and velocity. The swarm’s
overall best particle, known as the global best, emerges in PSO
iterations. PSO’s iterative process refines particle positions
by updating their location and velocity [34]. During path
optimization, particles use vectors like their previous velocity,
the global best position, and the personal best position to
determine optimal routes. In the context of UAV path plan-
ning, this optimization method guides UAVs through complex
environments, facilitating efficient navigation towards mission
objectives. Leveraging PSO’s ability to find optimal solutions
within challenging and dynamic scenarios, this approach as-
sists UAVs in identifying safe and effective routes amidst
diverse obstacles and constraints.
Utilizing the PSO algorithm, we formulated optimal flight
paths for UAVs navigating through combat zones, particularly
in the presence of radar systems and ground-based artillery.
Radar systems are critical in locating and tracking airspace
objects, making evading radar detection imperative for mission
success and security in hostile environments. Additionally,
ground-based artillery poses a significant threat to UAVs.
Addressing these ground-based threats requires navigation
strategies considering not just altitude but also the dynamic
nature of the threats, demanding agile and adaptable flight
paths. Effectively evading both hostile radar detection and
ground-based threats, like artillery, requires a comprehensive
strategy that recognizes the distinct challenges posed by
each threat source. Our proposed UAV’s trajectory routing
is designed to maintain a consistent altitude above sea level,
simplifying the navigation model and establishing a reliable
benchmark for the UAV’s flight trajectory. In contrast, ground-
based navigation often involves adaptations to the terrain
and on-ground obstacles, necessitating deviations from the
UAV’s consistent altitude approach. The UAV’s route planning
based on the PSO algorithm is depicted in Fig. 3, where a
small red circle represents the initial UAV position, while a
blue circle denotes the target location. Large circles indicate
radar threats, while small circles represent artillery threats.
The black dotted line illustrates the path generated by the
PSO algorithm. The scenarios varied in complexity, giving
unique navigation problems. We assume the UAV has prior
knowledge of the target location and aims to navigate while
evading various threats to reach its designated objective. Three
scenarios with varying complexity levels have been introduced,
each presenting different configurations of radar and artillery
threats. Higher complexity levels entail more intricate radar
and artillery threats distributed sparsely along the trajectory
from the starting point to the goal. We also illustrate the
convergence rate concerning the path length for all three
scenarios in Fig. 4.
IV. C HALLENGES AND F UTURE R ESEARCH D IRECTIONS
The evolving landscape of modern warfare demands com-
munication systems adept at maneuvering through diverse
networks, managing contested electromagnetic spectrums,
and meeting escalating requirements for multimedia-intensive
communications. Integrating unmanned autonomous systems
6
and diverse sensors in military operations elevates the im-
portance of adaptive communication strategies, particularly
in BLOS scenarios. This section delves into the cutting-edge
challenges unique to BLOS contexts, offering valuable insights
into the future of military communication technologies and
their pivotal role in shaping successful defense operations,
especially under conditions where direct visual or radio contact
is limited.
A. Resilience in Harsh Infrastructure Environments
Defense communication systems, operating across diverse
and dispersed environments, encounter infrastructure chal-
lenges distinct from those in established commercial networks
[35]. The adaptability of defense communication systems be-
comes paramount for ensuring reliable and secure connectivity
in unpredictable operational scenarios, spanning various ter-
rains, from dense urban landscapes to remote, austere regions.
Effectively addressing these BLOS infrastructure challenges
underscores the need for strategic approaches to optimize
network performance and enhance resilience across dynamic
landscapes. An emerging frontier for BLOS research involves
exploring the evolving role of space-based systems within
critical infrastructure frameworks, offering pivotal opportu-
nities for future military operations [36]. Understanding and
harnessing the potential of BLOS space-based systems could
revolutionize the planning and execution of military endeavors.
The reliability of these systems, integral to most BLOS mili-
tary operations, highlights the interdependence between BLOS
satellite control and underground systems [36]. Future research
should explore the intricate relationship between national
security and safeguarding critical infrastructure. Considering
the persistent evolution of threats driven by technological
advancements, innovative approaches, including adaptations
to federal regulations and proactive anticipation of potential
crisis scenarios, should be explored to fortify this essential
connection.
B. Heterogeneous Networks for BLOS Communication
Heterogeneous networks are crucial in BLOS defense com-
munication systems, offering a unified infrastructure that
seamlessly integrates diverse technologies, standards, and de-
vices [37]. This approach is instrumental in tackling chal-
lenges arising from temporal and spatial variability during
military operations, providing adaptive solutions that dynam-
ically adjust to changing conditions, and ensuring continu-
ous communication [38], [39]. The increasing integration of
Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) technologies in military
communications, driven by advantages like simplified pro-
curement, rapid deployment, and cost-effectiveness, necessi-
tates meticulous customization to adhere to stringent security
and reliability standards. Tactical communications, marked
by the coexistence of COTS-derived solutions and military
standards, require precise planning and integration testing for
heterogeneous networks in BLOS communication scenarios.
For instance, the Italian Navy’s research center, Selex ES,
and ELMAN performed a collaborative effort to develop a
modular testbed that facilitates swift integration of diverse

(a)
Fig. 3. UAV route planning in different scenarios (a) low complexity (b) medium complexity (c) high complexity.
11000
10500
10000
9500
Path Length [m]
9000
8500
8000
7500
7000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of Iterations
Fig. 4. Convergence curve of 3 different scenarios
technologies, providing a customizable environment for var-
ious test campaigns, particularly relevant to maritime and
littoral operations [40]. These initiatives highlight the broad
applications of heterogeneous networks in military contexts,
addressing challenges in experimentation, security, routing
architectures, energy efficiency in sensor networks, and opti-
mization of UAV coalition-based networks for surveillance and
spectrum access [41]. Together, these efforts underscore the
pivotal role of heterogeneous networks in meeting the intricate
communication requirements of modern military operations in
BLOS scenarios.
C. Contested Electromagnetic Spectrum
Military communications encounter the challenges of navi-
gating contested electromagnetic environments, where adapt-
ability remains pivotal for sustaining BLOS link performance
and resilience against vulnerabilities [42], [43]. BLOS consid-
erations gain significance as military operations extend beyond
direct visual or radio contact. This strategic shift aims to secure
freedom of action in the contested electromagnetic spectrum
while recognizing the limitations of BLOS in seeking global
supremacy through rapid technological advancements. In the
7
(b) (c)
contemporary global landscape, characterized by widespread
access to high-end electronics technology, the Defense Sci-
Senario 1
Senario 2
ence Board conducted a comprehensive investigation into
Senario 3 the U.S. military’s operational capabilities within complex
electromagnetic environments [44]. This investigation revealed
significant deficiencies in operational support across diverse
mission areas, highlighting potential limitations against near-
peer and regional powers in terms of sensing, communication,
networking, and synchronizing operations. The electromag-
netic spectrum has emerged as a strategic domain, interlinking
land, air, naval, space, and cyber domains. While Western
armed forces historically maintained electromagnetic superi-
ority, the evolving landscape challenges this dominance with
its increasingly complex and congested spectrum. Competitors
such as Russia, China, and non-state actors leverage advancing
70 80 90 100 technology, threatening Western sovereignty in this domain.
Addressing this challenge requires a pragmatic approach
emphasizing issues like agile spectrum management, effects
concentration, and subsidiarity at the tactical level to establish
electromagnetic local superiority within specific space-time
frameworks.
D. Increasing Need for Multimedia-Intensive Communication
In contemporary military operations, the scope of BLOS
communication surpasses traditional voice and data transmis-
sion to encompass highly multimedia-intensive capabilities,
including video and broadband. This evolution mirrors the
dynamic nature of 21st-century military competencies, where
soldiers are required to embody essential attributes (Be), pos-
sess knowledge (Know), and execute actions (Do) for success
in diverse operational environments [45]. Addressing the chal-
lenges of flexible, rapidly deployable communication systems
within the broader spectrum of BLOS military communication
also acknowledges the need for multimedia-intensive capa-
bilities. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) underscores the imperative of untethered commu-
nications, advocating for research and development efforts to
meet the Department of Defense’s requirements for security,
interoperability, and flexibility [46]. 5G and beyond technolo-
gies can be investigated to provide real-time decision support
in the future defense landscape, enabling hyper-converged con-
nectivity and secure data networks. Moreover, it can facilitate

the transfer of massive amounts of data, providing instant
situational awareness and enhancing training and battlefield
capabilities.
E. Adapting to Changing Requirements
Integrating unmanned autonomous systems and diverse sen-
sors poses dynamic and evolving requirements, demanding
high agility and adaptability from military communication sys-
tems. These evolving needs are pivotal for ensuring effective
connectivity in BLOS communication amid rapidly changing
operational landscapes. While military establishments were
once a smaller part of the wireless communications market,
the current commercial sector significantly shapes technology
development [47]. However, crucial disparities persist, includ-
ing the necessity for BLOS communication in areas lacking
well-maintained infrastructure, the integration of multi-hop
networks, and the operation of multiple heterogeneous net-
works within the same area. Bridging these diverse networks,
especially in contested electromagnetic environments, remains
a formidable challenge [48]. As the military grapples with
evolving operational landscapes, fostering a new ethic for
analysis and analysts and emphasizing cognitive engineering
principles becomes paramount in ensuring the adaptability and
effectiveness of BLOS military communication strategies.
F. Towards the Internet of Military Things (IoMT)
In the realm of defense systems, the future lies in a
unified network powered by the Internet of Military Things
(IoMT). This interconnected system brings together various
assets—ships, aircraft, ground vehicles, drones, and person-
nel—enabled by edge computing, AI, and 5G technologies.
It enhances command structures, allowing instant decisions
in real-time scenarios [49]. BLOS communication is pivotal
in shaping the future of IoMT, which unifies three key do-
mains: physical data generation from sensors and observers,
information transmission and storage, and cognitive data pro-
cessing. This interconnected network supports various military
functions like troop command, weapon systems management,
surveillance, and medical care. However, ensuring robust
device and network security remains a significant challenge,
along with addressing the battlefield’s connectivity, interoper-
ability, and power requirements. Overcoming these hurdles is
crucial for the future of military operations and underscores
the importance of BLOS communication.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper explores BLOS communication’s crucial role in
defense, particularly where traditional Line-of-Sight methods
fall short. To underscore BLOS capabilities, we’ve examined
advanced technologies like phantom networks, nanonetworks,
aerial relays, and satellite defense communication. The prac-
tical UAV path planning case study in artillery environments
solidifies these concepts, demonstrating the tangible impact of
BLOS defense systems in real scenarios. Moreover, the paper
also highlights several future research directions, including
resilience enhancement, the integration of heterogeneous net-
works, management of contested spectrums, advancements in
8
multimedia communication, adaptive methodologies, and the
burgeoning domain of the Internet of Military Things (IoMT).
In short, this research holds significance for academia and
industry, opening paths for optimizing BLOS communication
systems and guiding technological advancements with a focus
on security and cyber resilience. It showcases practical BLOS
applications in military operations, encouraging collaborations
among defense agencies, tech developers, and academia. This
resonates with the Sustainable Development Goals, fostering
peace, security, and technological innovation while bridging
academic and industrial frontiers.
R EFERENCES
[1] Future Market Insight, “Defense communication system
market outlook,” https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/
defence-communication-system-market, online; accessed 24 Nov
2023.
[2] V. Gotarane and S. Raskar, “Iot practices in military applications,”
in 2019 3rd International Conference on Trends in Electronics and
Informatics (ICOEI). IEEE, 2019, pp. 891–894.
[3] M. A. Rupar, E. Larsen, H. B. Saglam, J. A. Savin, B. Gurdil, T. A.
Lampe, N. Bruck, S. Peltotalo, and R. B. Blasco, “Airborne beyond line-
of-sight communication networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine,
vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 34–39, 2020.
[4] R. He, B. Ai, G. Wang, M. Yang, C. Huang, and Z. Zhong, “Wireless
channel sparsity: Measurement, analysis, and exploitation in estimation,”
IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 113–119, 2021.
[5] N. Saeed, A. Elzanaty, H. Almorad, H. Dahrouj, T. Y. Al-Naffouri, and
M.-S. Alouini, “Cubesat communications: Recent advances and future
challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 22, no. 3,
pp. 1839–1862, 2020.
[6] R. A. Khalil, N. Saeed, M. I. Babar, and T. Jan, “Toward the internet of
underwater things: Recent developments and future challenges,” IEEE
Consumer Electronics Magazine, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 32–37, 2020.
[7] Rick Lober, “5 trends for defense communications
in 2022,” https://www.hughes.com/resources/insights/5g/
5-trends-defense-communications-2022, online; accessed 12 Nov
2023.
[8] T. Tuukkanen, S. Yrjölä, and M. Matinmikko-Blue, “A systematic
literature review: Is military cognitive radio system on the brink of the
“valley of death”?” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine,
vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 16–23, 2021.
[9] Y. Wu, H.-N. Dai, H. Wang, and K.-K. R. Choo, “Exploiting 5g
and blockchain for medical applications of drones,” IEEE NETWORK,
vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 50–56, 2021.
[10] X. Wang, J. Wang, Y. Xu, J. Chen, L. Jia, X. Liu, and Y. Yang, “Dynamic
spectrum anti-jamming communications: Challenges and opportunities,”
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 79–85, 2020.
[11] O. B. Akan and M. Arik, “Internet of radars: Sensing versus sending with
joint radar-communications,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 58,
no. 9, pp. 13–19, 2020.
[12] S. Misra and A. Mukherjee, “” phantom networks”: The intangible
shoot-and-scoot communication paradigm for future militaries,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 66–71, 2020.
[13] R. A. Poisel, Introduction to communication electronic warfare systems.
Artech House, Inc., 2008.
[14] Andrew, “Phantom mesh,” https://pegasusintelligence.com/docs/
KMB083-Phantom-MESH-Overview-NEW-compressed.pdf, online;
accessed 11 Nov 2023.
[15] Satnews, “Blu Wireless launches PhantomBlu for Nexgen 5G
tactical and MUM-T comms,” https://news.satnews.com/2023/09/18/
blu-wireless-launches-phantomblu-for-nexgen-5g-tactical-and-mum-t-comms/,
2023, online; accessed 11 Nov 2023.
[16] I. F. Akyildiz, F. Brunetti, and C. Blázquez, “Nanonetworks: A new
communication paradigm,” Computer Networks, vol. 52, no. 12, pp.
2260–2279, 2008.
[17] I. F. Akyildiz, F. Fekri, R. Sivakumar, C. R. Forest, and B. K. Hammer,
“Monaco: fundamentals of molecular nano-communication networks,”
IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 12–18, 2012.
[18] F. Dressler and F. Kargl, “Towards security in nano-communication:
Challenges and opportunities,” Nano communication networks, vol. 3,
no. 3, pp. 151–160, 2012.

[19] Will Soutter, “Nanotechnology in the Military,” https://www.azonano.
com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3028, 2012, online; accessed 9 Nov 2023.
[20] United State Space Force, “Defense satellite communications system,”
https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/2197790/
defense-satellite-communications-system/, online; accessed 23 Nov
2023.
[21] M. Haris, R. A. Khalil, and N. Saeed, “Polarization re-configurable
antenna with increase gain for small satellites,” Journal of Electrical
Engineering & Technology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 3213–3218, 2021.
[22] N. Saeed, H. Almorad, H. Dahrouj, T. Y. Al-Naffouri, J. S. Shamma,
and M.-S. Alouini, “Point-to-point communication in integrated satellite-
aerial 6G networks: State-of-the-art and future challenges,” IEEE Open
Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 2, pp. 1505–1525, 2021.
[23] Defense One, “Space force & military space station,”
https://www.defenseone.com/insights/cards/space-based-c4isr/8/?oref=
d1-cards-cardstack-toc, online; accessed 24 Nov 2023.
[24] Airbus, “Milsatcom,” https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/
defence/milsatcom, online; accessed 24 Nov 2023.
[25] D. Yin, X. Yang, H. Yu, S. Chen, and C. Wang, “An air-to-ground relay
communication planning method for uavs swarm applications,” IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2023.
[26] M. Matracia, N. Saeed, M. A. Kishk, and M.-S. Alouini, “Post-
disaster communications: Enabling technologies, architectures, and open
challenges,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 3,
pp. 1177–1205, 2022.
[27] S. J. Kim, G. J. Lim, and J. Cho, “Drone relay stations for supporting
wireless communication in military operations,” in Advances in Human
Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems: Proceedings of the AHFE
2017 International Conference on Human Factors in Robots and Un-
manned Systems, July 17- 21, 2017, The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los
Angeles, California, USA 8. Springer, 2018, pp. 123–130.
[28] S. Javaid, N. Saeed, Z. Qadir, H. Fahim, B. He, H. Song, and M. Bilal,
“Communication and control in collaborative uavs: Recent advances and
future trends,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 5719–5739, 2023.
[29] R. A. Khalil, N. Saeed, and M. Almutiry, “Uavs-assisted passive source
localization using robust tdoa ranging for search and rescue,” ICT
Express, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 677–682, 2023.
[30] H. Wang, J. Wang, G. Ding, J. Chen, F. Gao, and Z. Han, “Completion
time minimization with path planning for fixed-wing uav communica-
tions,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 18, no. 7,
pp. 3485–3499, 2019.
[31] K. Bollino and L. R. Lewis, “Collision-free multi-uav optimal path
planning and cooperative control for tactical applications,” in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2008, p.
7134.
[32] M. Dinc, “Design considerations for military data link architecture in
enabling integration of intelligent unmanned air vehicles (uavs) with
navy units,” in NATO SCI Conference, Germany, 2009.
[33] L. Zhou, S. Leng, Q. Liu, and Q. Wang, “Intelligent UAV swarm
cooperation for multiple targets tracking,” vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 743–754,
2022.
[34] M. Haris, D. M. S. Bhatti, and H. Nam, “An improved particle swarm
optimization algorithm based on s-shaped activation function for fast
convergence,” in Proc.13th IEEE Int. Conf. ICT Converg. (ICTC), 2022,
pp. 239–243.
9
[35] Thales, “Mission-critical communications,” https://www.thalesgroup.
com/en/communications-pour-missions-critiques, online; accessed 5
Nov 2023.
[36] M.-M. Coman and D. Badea, “The critical space infrastructure and
its importance to military operations,” in International Conference
Knowledge-Based Organization, vol. 25, no. 1, 2019, pp. 47–52.
[37] J. Chen, Q. Wu, Y. Xu, N. Qi, X. Guan, Y. Zhang, and Z. Xue, “Joint
task assignment and spectrum allocation in heterogeneous uav communi-
cation networks: A coalition formation game-theoretic approach,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 440–452,
2020.
[38] S. Singh, Manju, A. Malik, and P. K. Singh, “A threshold-based en-
ergy efficient military surveillance system using heterogeneous wireless
sensor networks,” Soft Computing, pp. 1–14, 2021.
[39] N. Suri, A. Hansson, J. Nilsson, P. Lubkowski, K. Marcus, M. Hauge,
K. Lee, B. Buchin, L. Mısırhoğlu, and M. Peuhkuri, “A realistic military
scenario and emulation environment for experimenting with tactical
communications and heterogeneous networks,” in 2016 International
Conference on Military Communications and Information Systems (ICM-
CIS). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–8.
[40] F. Arreghini, R. Agrone, P. Danielli, and A. Pigni, “Heterogeneous net-
work testbed for tactical communication in shore scenario,” in MILCOM
2015-2015 IEEE Military Communications Conference. IEEE, 2015,
pp. 483–488.
[41] A. M. Hegland, M. Hauge, and A. Holtzer, “Federating tactical edge
networks: Ways to improve connectivity, security, and network efficiency
in tactical heterogeneous networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine,
vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 72–78, 2020.
[42] D. S. B. Washington, “21st century military operations in a complex
electromagnetic environment,” Tech. Rep., 2015.
[43] J. R. Hoehn, J. C. Gallagher, and K. M. Sayler, Overview of department
of defense use of the electromagnetic spectrum. Congressional Research
Service, 2020.
[44] C. S. Bahk, M. C. COMMAND, and S. C. Q. VA, “Traversing the
invisible: How to prepare the ground combat element for maneuver
warfare in the electromagnetic spectrum,” 2020.
[45] D. Sangwan and P. Raj, “The philosophy of be, know, and do in forming
the 21st-century military war-front competencies: a systematic review,”
Defence Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 375–424, 2021.
[46] N. R. Council et al., The evolution of untethered communications.
National Academies Press, 1998.
[47] M. S. Vassiliou, J. R. Agre, S. Shah, and T. MacDonald, “Crucial dif-
ferences between commercial and military communications technology
needs: Why the military still needs its own research,” in MILCOM 2013-
2013 IEEE Military Communications Conference. IEEE, 2013, pp.
342–347.
[48] B. J. Knox, Ø. Jøsok, K. Helkala, P. Khooshabeh, T. Ødegaard, R. G.
Lugo, and S. Sütterlin, “Socio-technical communication: the hybrid
space and the olb model for science-based cyber education,” Military
Psychology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 350–359, 2018.
[49] R. Langleite, C. Griwodz, and F. T. Johnsen, “Military applications
of internet of things: Operational concerns explored in context of a
prototype wearable,” 2021.