Open Journal Systems


Yousaf Ali, Ali Asghar, Noor Muhammad, Aneel Salman



The selection of military aircraft, by nature, is a process consisting of conflicting goals and objectives at the conceptual, preliminary, and detailed level. In order to ease the process of making decisions wisely from a varied group of options available, Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods are applied effectively. A scenario is put forth pertaining to defense acquisition, when a contemporary air force needs to select and add new and better fighter aircrafts to their pre-existing fleets. This paper studies the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and its goal to improve its aerial defense and precise ground strike capabilities. Moreover, this paper aims to help raise the bar of general aerial defense and counter terrorism operations. This research paper also sets an appropriate methodological approach for defense procurement and the fleet up-gradation planning process via the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), an MCDM technique. Furthermore, this study specifically focuses on a set of ten technical and economic criteria, applied over six alternative aircraft while, keeping in mind, the counter-insurgency and aerial defense requirements of PAF. Lastly, a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) has been applied to ensure that the selected alternative is in line with the economic constraints faced by the limited fiscal budget of Pakistan.


Multi Criteria Decision Making, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Cost Benefit Analysis, Efficiency Cost Indicator.

Full Text:



Bhadra, D. Choice of aircraft fleets in the US NAS: findings from a multinomial logit analysis. 3rd Annual Technical Forum of the ATIO/AIAA, Denver, CO, 2003.

Bhushan, N. & Rai, K. (2007). Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. London: Springer Science & Business Media. Doi: 10.1007/b97668

Büyükyazıcı, M. & Sucu, M. (2003). The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network processes. Criterion, 1, c1.

Dey, P. K. (2002). Benchmarking project management practices of Caribbean organizations using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Benchmarking: An international journal, 9, 326-356. Doi:

Dožić, S. & Kalić, M. (2014). An AHP approach to aircraft selection process. Transportation Research Procedia, 3, 165-174. Doi:

Dožić, S. & Kalić, M. (2015_. Comparison of two MCDM methodologies in aircraft type selection problem. Transportation Research Procedia, 10, 910-919. Doi:

Forman, E. H. & Gass, S. I. (2001). The Analytic Hierarchy Process—an exposition. Operations Research, 49, 469-486. Doi:

Harasani, W. I. (2006). Evaluation and selection of a fleet of aircraft for a local airline. Journal of King. Abdulaziz University: Engineering Sciences, 17(2), 3-16. Doi: 10.4197/eng.17-2.1

Harasani, W. I. (2013). Evaluation and selection of a fleet of aircraft located in Madniah, Saudi Arabia. Editorial and Advisory Board, 4, 40.

Hwang, C. & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple criteria decision making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 186.

Kyriazis, N. & Salavrakos, I.-D. (2006). Defence procurement in Greece:: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of fighters for the Hellenic Air Force. 10th Annual International Conference on Economics and Security, Thessaloniki. Citeseer, 22-24. Doi:

Martins, H. & Mendoza, G. A. (2006). Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modeling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management, 3, 1-22. Doi:

Palut, M. P. J. & Canziani, O. F. (2007). Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pyzdek, T. (2014). AHP spreadsheet [Online]. Available:

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26. Doi:

Saaty, T. L. (2004). Decision making—the Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13, 1-35.

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1, 83-98. Doi:

Salomon, V. A. & Montevechi, J. A. B. (2001). A compilation of comparisons on the Analytic Hierarchy Process and others multiple criteria decision making methods: some cases developed in Brazil. 6th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Bern.

Sánchez-Lozano, J., Serna, J. & Dolón-Payán, A. (2015). Evaluating military training aircrafts through the combination of multi-criteria decision making processes with fuzzy logic. A case study in the Spanish Air Force Academy. Aerospace Science and Technology, 42, 58-65. Doi:

Sen, P. & Yang, J.-B. (1998). Multiple criteria decision support in engineering design. London: Springer. Doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-3020-8

Stewart, T. & Belton, V. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An integrated approach, London. Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Syed, B. S. (2016). Time running out for Pakistan on F-16 decision. Dawn News.

Tsagdis, A. (2008). The use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process as a source selection methodology and its potential application within the Hellenic Air Force. DTIC Document.

Udo, G. G. (2000). Using Analytic Hierarchy Process to analyze the information technology outsourcing decision. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100(9), 421-429. Doi:

Wang, J., Fan, K., Su, Y., Liang, S. & Wang, W. (2008). Air combat effectiveness assessment of military aircraft using a fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methodology. System Simulation and Scientific Computing, 2008. ICSC 2008. Asia Simulation Conference-7th International Conference on, 2008a. IEEE, 655-662. Doi: Doi: 10.1109/ASC-ICSC.2008.4675442

Wang, R., Zhang, A. & Shi, Z.-W. (2008b). Effectiveness evaluation of advanced fighter plane based on power series and fuzzy AHP [J]. Fire Control and Command Control, 11, 020.

Wang, T.-C. & Chang, T.-H. (2007). Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 33, 870-880. Doi: