IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 244 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 SELECTION OF A FIGHTER AIRCRAFT TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AIR COMBAT IN THE WAR ON TERROR: PAKISTAN AIR FORCE - A CASE IN POINT Yousaf Ali, PhD Assistant Professor of Operation Management, Department of Management Sciences, GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, Pakistan yousafkhan@giki.edu.pk Ali Asghar Muzzaffar Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology Pakistan aliasgharmuzzaffar@gmail.com Noor Muhammad, PhD Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship, Department of Management Science, GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, Pakistan noormuhammad@giki.edu.pk Aneel Salman Assistant Professor Department of Management Science COMSATS, Institute of Information Technology Islamabad, Pakistan aneel.salman@comsats.edu.pk ABSTRACT 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. mailto:yousafkhan@giki.edu.pk mailto:aliasgharmuzzaffar@gmail.com mailto:noormuhammad@giki.edu.pk mailto:aneel.salman@comsats.edu.pk IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 245 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Keywords: Multi-Criteria Decision Making; Analytical Hierarchy Process; Cost Benefit Analysis; Efficiency cost indicator 1. Introduction The definition of a "good" overall design for a military weapon system almost always depends on one’s point of view. From a performance standpoint, necessary important phases are required for an advanced multirole strike aircraft. For example, significant ground attack capability exists in the form of delivering a maximum payload to a target at an appropriate range including some air-to-air capability at certain Mach- altitude combinations. The resulting size and geometry of such an aircraft, however, may result in a poor level of survivability due to increases in their radar and infrared signature. Further, passive improvements in these signatures may dramatically drive up the aircraft cost. It is predicted that there will be 5% growth per year in commercial aviation over the next 20-25 years (Palut & Canziani, 2007). Usually, most aircraft are expected to have a service time of 30 years or longer, however, there are various uncertainties that can affect the aircraft’s feasibility and viability during its service period. For example, fuel prices are always fluctuating and this influences the viability of the aircraft. With advancing technology and political difficulties in the world, tensions between nations are also on the rise. Not only this, but the contours of war have changed over time too. Hence, instead of decisive battles, wars are becoming asymmetric and are being fought under unpredictable circumstances. The enemy is no longer well-defined and the frontlines are not marked. Therefore, armies in great numbers are not sufficient to win wars; instead, it is technology, strategy and diplomacy that can lead to winning wars in this 21 st century. Because of the existence of weapons capable of mass destruction, nations cannot afford to go for an all-out war. Thus, to counter these changes and difficulties, surgical strikes are a rapid option that is available with precise measures and policies. At the center of modern warfare lies a country’s air force. The air force of a nation serves both as its sword and its shield; thereby, giving a nation the capability to strike its enemy a decisive blow, while protecting it from both retaliation and aggression. Pakistan is a vulnerable country, easily targeted and prone to attacks. This is evidenced by the fact that just beyond Pakistan’s eastern front, lays its neighbor and traditional rival India, with which it has fought four wars in history. Moreover, within its borders Pakistan is faced by the threat of growing radical extremism. Being a nuclear armed nation of 182.1 million 1 , it needs to maintain a strong military force to tackle these continuous security challenges. The most crucial asset for Pakistan, in the current era, has been its air force. Over the span of time, Pakistan has faced global sanctions, which has made it unable to upgrade its fleet of aircraft. At present, the Pakistan Air Force is facing a widespread challenge in the form of radical extremism. This is known to mostly originate from the remote and rugged terrain of the North West Frontier that is inaccessible with rapid-response forces at the ground level. To counter this issue, the PAF needs efficient state-of-the-art aircraft, equipped and fully competent with the latest precision strike technology for 1 The World Bank 2015 Global Census Data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL) IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 246 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 targeting its enemies with pin-point accuracy and minimum collateral damage. These aircraft will also be useful in the fleets responsible for countering international security threats. In general, selection of a combat aircraft is a very complicated matter that is governed by economic, technical and geopolitical constraints. In addition to this, it is necessary for an air force to adhere to its operational and ever-changing defense requirements. Therefore, strategic planning is critical in making an efficient and particular choice. In the literature review, the aircraft selection process has been performed in various ways, but specifically focuses on civilian applications in which the issue in question is relatively well-explained. However, a novel approach is required when considering military applications. The implicit purpose of this research paper is to solve the issue regarding selection of aircraft in the Pakistan Air Force. This involves replacing its increasingly aging fleet and matching its requirements to counter terrorist operations while keeping in mind the diplomatic and economic constraints. It is essential not to forget that the problem is the inherent multi-criteria decision making. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used for this purpose to select an appropriate aircraft. AHP has been successfully applied in resource allocation and forecasting. Since aircraft selection is a process which is closely connected to these areas, the use of AHP is reasonable in this case. The advantage of this decision support tool is that the final ranking is obtained on the basis of pair-wise assessment between the criteria and the alternatives, both of which are selected as part of this study. Additionally, the AHP approach is engaged because its algorithm is rational and easily comprehensible. Further, to ensure that the economic constraints are well accounted for a Cost Benefit Analysis was implemented to the periodic operational and maintenance costs involved in addition to the initial investment. This paper is organized in the following order: literature review, methodology, conclusion, discussion of results and future considerations. 2. Literature review The Analytical Hierarchy Process was introduced by Thomas Saaty (Saaty, 1990). This method has been applied specifically in various situations, ranging from comprehensive economic studies to very critical defense acquisitions. It has been repeatedly applied on cases pertaining to airline aircraft acquisitions with studies focused on civilian travelling requirements (Bhadra, 2003; Harasani, 2006; Harasani, 2013). It has been used successfully as a measure of decision-making in procurement of defense assets and has been asserted to be a suitable decision making tool for defense acquisitions (Tsagdis, 2008). Henceforth, the aforementioned reference emphasizes the fact that the complexity of the decisions involved in defense asset procurement are due to social disapproval of budget allocation for the defense sector. This further reflected in the solution to this problem by considering the cause, which is the variety of criteria ranging from technical to socio-economic factors. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) is a process that allows one to make decisions in the presence of multiple, potentially conflicting criteria (Hwang & Yoon, 1981; Sen and Yang, 1998). Furthermore, a study that applies the Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to allow for the selection of an optimal training aircraft in an uncertain environment has been further IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 247 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 probed in Wang and Chang (2007). AHP has also been used in ill-defined environments with a comparison of the results, attained via TOPSIS, to propose a solution to the air combat effectiveness assessment problem; thus framing it as a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) case (Wang et al., 2008a,b). A study based on a certain Cost Benefit Analysis application was considered where the said method had been used to allow for the addition of a new fighter aircraft in the Hellenic Air Force (Kyriazis & Salavrakos, 2006). The study, closest to the one presented by the authors of this paper, is the evaluation of military training aircrafts through the combination of multi-criteria decision making with ambiguous logic looking at the Spanish Air Force (Sánchez-Lozano et al., 2015). Hence, this research paper aims to associate the weights to the criteria using AHP and further evaluate it using the TOPSIS method. It is essential to know that the data set being addressed has not been studied to date. Perhaps, these criteria have been used for the purposes of Pakistan Air Force; however, they have not yet been applied and inspected as a measure of asset procurement by academia. With no more than nine, totally independent alternatives, the usage of AHP may allow for excellent results (Salomon & Montevechi, 2001). This assertion is strongly supported by another study which lays down a comparison between AHP and ANP as options of applicative methods. The study also determines how the complex inter-relation between criterion and alternatives leads to the application of ANP in a certain scenario (Büyükyazıcı &Sucu, 2003). However, the application of ANP, though an exception that it is applicable in our present case, may cause complications in data collection through surveying in addition to the error due to incorrect perception of the questionnaire by the respondent. Saaty (1980), in his research claimed that if we decide on the available options intuitively we may acquire misleading results since the larger the quantity of options the better the AHP performs. AHP is most useful where teams of people are working on complex problems, especially those with high stakes, involving human perceptions and judgments, whose resolutions have long-term repercussions. It has unique advantages when important elements of the decision are difficult to quantify or compare, or where communication among team members is impeded by their different specializations, terminologies, or perspectives (Stewart & Belton, 2002). At its simplest, MCDM is a shelter that has all major formal methodologies that require many criteria when making a decision by individuals or even by groups. It originates from operational research and supports a single decision maker making an appropriate decision (Martins & Mendoza, 2006). Hence, the AHP proves to be an important technique in this scenario. While making a decision we need to focus on the purpose of the decision, all the sub criteria for the decision making process and the groups affected by them. AHP is used extensively by leading organizations across the globe (Bhushan & Rai, 2007). The Department of Defense in the United States uses AHP frequently and extensively to make major decisions including how to distribute their resources across diversified activity areas (Forman & Gass, 2001). Similarly, the General Service Department (GSA) in the U.S used the AHP to decide what kind of new technology initiatives they needed in order to meet the increasing demands while at the Information Technology Conference (Udo, 2000). Apart from governmental organizations, there are many successful examples of AHP use in leading multinationals operating across the globe (Saaty, 2008). In 1998, British Airways employed this method with their IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 248 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Board of Directors to determine which entertainment system vendor would be the optimum one for their entire fleet of planes (Saaty, 2004). Xerox Corporation used AHP to allocate their billion dollars of funds in research and development projects (Dey, 2002). In 1999, Ford Motor Company used AHP to design a scale for the satisfaction of customers based on the priorities (Saaty, 2008). All of these examples support the reliability of the use of this technique in fighter aircraft selection to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror. Thus, AHP provides a convenient solution to be applied on the data set. Moreover, it may be asserted that though publications pertaining to defense assets have been previously published in large numbers, among the ones focusing on aerial defense in the context of Cost-Benefit Analysis assessment, AHP is not highly represented. It may be further noticed that works pertaining to the effectiveness of the air force in the war against terrorism remain alarmingly low and thus, it was difficult to review the literature in this particular context. 3. Methodology 3.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process The Analytical Hierarchy Process is a powerful and flexible Multi-criteria Decision making tool (MCDM), introduced and developed by Saaty (1990). It involves pair- wise comparisons between a set of alternatives for each criterion. Comparisons are made using a scale of absolute judgments (1, 3, 5, 7, 9), as well as intermediate values between the two judgments that represents the relative measure of one alternative over another with respect to a given criteria (Dožić & Kalić, 2015). By reducing complex decisions to a series of simple comparisons and rankings and then synthesizing the results, the AHP not only helps the analysts arrive at the best decision, but also provides a clear rationale for the choices made (Wang et al., 2008a). Its main steps include: 1. Statement of the goal, decision criteria and alternatives. 2. Development of a pair wise comparison matrix. 3. Development of a standardized/normalized matrix. 4. Development of a priority vector. 5. Computation of the consistency ratio which should be less than 0.1. 6. Development of a priority matrix. After steps 2 through 5 have been performed for each criterion, the results of step 4 are summarized in a priority matrix by listing the decision alternatives vertically and the criteria horizontally. The column entries are the priority vectors for each criterion. 7. Development of a criteria pair wise development matrix. 8. Development of an overall priority vector. Multiplying the criteria priority vector (from step 7) by the priority matrix (from step 6) may then be used to determine the overall ranking of alternatives (step 8). 9. Choosing the alternative with the highest rank. In this study, the goal was to select the best combat aircraft for PAF that has optimal precision striking capability within a limited budget. Wang and Chang (2007) proposed a systematic evaluation model to help the Air Force Academy with selection of an optimal training aircraft, mainly from the perspective of pilot drillmasters and trainees (Dožić & Kalić, 2014). Figure 1 explains the flow of the research. IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 249 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Figure 1. Flow chart of the research There are three levels of hierarchy and at level one the main goal or objective is to select a fighter aircraft to meet the counterinsurgency and air superiority requirements of the Pakistan Air Force. As such, a similar model, based on the literature review and expert opinions (as shown in Appendix A) was implemented, which made use of a set of the ten most critical and relevant multiple criteria, namely: Service Ceiling, Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW), Precision Target Capability, Cruising Speed, Maneuverability, Acquisition Cost, Operation Cost, Maintainability and Availability. These are at level 2 of the hierarchy. Of all the current modern combat aircraft, six were shortlisted as decision alternatives, keeping the critical technological requirements of precision target capability and political and financial constraints in view. These are at level three of the hierarchy. The importance of placing political constraints became apparent after a recent occurrence when the U.S. Congress rejected partially financing the sale of eight F-16 aircraft through the Foreign Military Financing program (Syed, 2016). The alternatives chosen were: Dassault Rafale, Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Mikoyan Mig-35, Sukhoi Su-35, Chengdu J-10 and PAC JF-17 Thunder. The hierarchy structure model of the problem is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Hierarchy structural model IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 250 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 In order to develop a pair wise comparison matrix for each criteria (Table 1), a rigorous literature review using manufacturer’s web sites and research articles was done in order to collect the relevant technical specifications of each alternative. Those specifications were used to assign values, on the scale of 1 to 9, in pair wise comparison matrix for each criterion. A Microsoft Excel template for carrying out computations was used (Pyzdek, 2014). Through this template, a normalized matrix (Table 2), priority vector (Table 3) and consistency ratio for each criterion was calculated. IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 251 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Table 1 Pair wise comparison matrix for service ceiling CR Value = 0.004 < 0.1 Pair wise comparisons Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Item Description Dassau lt Rafale Saab JAS 39 Gripen Mikoya n Mig- 35 Sukhoi Su-35 Chengd u J-10 PAC JF- 17 Thunder Dassault Rafale 1.00 1.00000 0.20000 0.2000 0 0.1666 7 0.33333 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1.00 1.00 0.20000 0.2000 0 0.1666 7 0.33333 Mikoyan Mig-35 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.0000 0 0.3333 3 3.00000 Sukhoi Su-35 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 0.3333 3 5.00000 Chengdu J-10 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 7.00000 PAC JF- 17 Thunder 3.00 3.00 0.33 0.20 0.14 1.00 Sum 21.00 21.00 5.73 5.60 2.14 16.67 Table 2 Standardized matrix for service ceiling Standardized Matrix Dassault Rafale Saab JAS 39 Gripen Mikoya n Mig- 35 Sukh oi Su- 35 Chengd u J-10 PAC JF- 17 Thund er Dassault Rafale 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.02 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.02 Mikoyan Mig-35 0.24 0.24 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.18 Sukhoi Su-35 0.24 0.24 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.30 Chengdu J-10 0.29 0.29 0.52 0.54 0.47 0.42 PAC JF- 17 Thunder 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.06 Table 3 Priority vector for service ceiling Alternatives Priority Vector Dassault Rafale 0.043935647 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 0.043935647 IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 252 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Mikoyan Mig-35 0.194122677 Sukhoi Su-35 0.214122677 Chengdu J-10 0.41951089 PAC JF-17 Thunder 0.084372462 Similar computations were carried out for each of the ten aforementioned criteria and the priority vectors for each criterion were obtained and combined in the form of a priority matrix as shown in Table 4. Conspicuously, the table shows the essential factors while carrying out these calculations for the six mentioned alternatives. This way it is easier to figure out which aircraft would be the most suitable amongst all or which particular feature stands out among other characteristics. For example, from the table we can perceive that the Sukhoi Su-35 has the highest precision target capability rate as compared to the other alternative aircraft, which is estimated to be 0.444 respectively. The data has been compiled in this table which will then shape into a priority matrix. IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 253 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9.i1.489 Table 4 Priority matrix Acquisition Cost Operation Cost Cruising Speed Precision Target Capability Combat Radius MTOW Service Ceiling Maneuverability Availability Maintainability Dassault Rafale 0.024853892 0.042068137 0.043859165 0.257950168 0.040440475 0.165533541 0.043935647 0.106139709 0.055040292 0.117350003 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 0.059670772 0.155277281 0.137430675 0.025935677 0.244689405 0.042697225 0.043935647 0.030107595 0.033615004 0.162488892 Mikoyan Mig-35 0.152929786 0.080478493 0.48754419 0.082711433 0.038079892 0.253810553 0.194122677 0.353267989 0.345335425 0.064605294 Sukhoi Su-35 0.072226552 0.025121824 0.146802014 0.444426704 0.405517136 0.434505123 0.214122677 0.358476322 0.345335425 0.051055158 Chengdu J- 10 0.2555856 0.27353918 0.146802014 0.141423021 0.051715962 0.077086391 0.41951089 0.121764709 0.110336926 0.209821978 PAC JF- 17 Thunder 0.434733398 0.423515086 0.037561942 0.047552996 0.21955713 0.026367167 0.084372462 0.030243676 0.110336926 0.394678676 IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 254 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Table 5 Criteria pair wise development matrix Service Ceiling MTOW PTC Combat Radius Cruising Speed Maneuverability Acquisition Cost Operation Cost Maintainability Availability Service Ceiling 1 3 3 3 5 2 2 1 3 2 MTOW (1/3) 1 2 4 4 2 2 3 2 1 PTC (1/3) (1/2) 1 6 7 6 5 4 4 5 Combat Radius (1/3) (1/4) (1/6) 1 5 5 (1/5) (1/3) 5 3 Cruising Speed (1/5) (1/4) (1/7) (1/5) 1 3 2 4 4 3 Maneuverability (1/2) (1/2) (1/6) (1/5) (1/3) 1 5 4 5 4 Acquisition Cost (1/2) (1/2) (1/5) 5 (1/2) (1/5) 1 5 7 4 Operation Cost 1 (1/3) (1/4) 3 (1/4) (1/4) (1/5) 1 6 4 Maintainability (1/3) (1/2) (1/4) (1/5) (1/4) (1/5) (1/7) (1/6) 1 5 Availability (1/2) 1 (1/5) (1/3) (1/3) (1//4) (1/4) (1/4) (1/5) 1 IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 255 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 In order to acquire data to develop a criteria pair wise development matrix, a questionnaire was carefully designed and dispatched to aviation experts comprised of on-duty, retired PAF officers and aeronautical engineers of varying ranks. Refer to Appendix B for the questionnaire. The challenge was to combine all the questionnaire responses into a single equivalent response so that its data could be used to assign the values, on the scale of 1 to 9, in pair wise comparison matrix between criteria. For each pair wise comparison between one criteria, e.g. between Service Ceiling and Precision Target Capability, the number of responses for each scale value was recorded and plotted on a histogram as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Histogram showing response frequency for service ceiling to precision target capability A weighted arithmetic mean was calculated to define a scale value for that particular pair wise comparison. Because a weighted arithmetic mean is based on all the observations, determined for almost every kind of data, it is least affected by fluctuations of sampling and is finite and not indefinite. Only the scale values with responses greater than one were considered in the computation of the mean. The mean was chosen as a measure of central tendency to eliminate the error due to incorrect questionnaire perception by the respondent. The expression to evaluate the mean is stated as follows: Weighted Arithmetic Mean = ( ∑(Scale Value × Response Frequency) Sum of Acceptible Response Frequencies ) For the histogram of pair wise comparison between Service Ceiling and Precision Target Capability, shown in Figure 1, the sample calculation is as follows: Weighted Arithmetic Mean = ( (1 × 3) + (3 × 9) 3 + 9 ) = 3 (to the nearest unit) This procedure was adopted and applied exhaustively for each pair wise comparison as a result of which a criteria pair wise development matrix was developed as shown in Tables 5 and 6. 3 9 0 0 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 3 5 7 9 Response Frequency Scale Value Service Ceiling to Precision Target Capability IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 256 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Moreover, Table 5 depicts that the factual data has been computed and blended in a pair mode to form a development matrix of the above mentioned criteria, giving us a clear view of the facts. Table 6 also contains a section of sum total of all the descriptive values significantly. The highest value of the sum total is seen to be under the maintainability column which shows a value of 37.20. The table also highlights those figures which are above the range of the staircase of 1.00 figures. Additionally, the lowest value of the sum of 5.03 is seen under the service ceiling column. Table 6 Criteria pair wise development matrix in MS Excel template CR Value = 0.048 < 0.1 Pair wise comparisons Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Item Description Service Ceiling MTOW PTC Combat Radius Cruising speed Maneuverability Acquisition Cost Operation Cost Maintainability Availability Service Ceiling 1.00 3.000 3.000 3.000 5.000 2.000 2.000 1.000 3.000 2.000 MTOW 0.33 1.00 2.000 4.000 4.000 2.000 2.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 PTC 0.33 0.50 1.00 6.000 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 4.000 5.000 Combat Radius 0.33 0.25 0.17 1.00 5.000 5.000 0.200 0.333 5.000 3.000 Cruising Speed 0.20 0.25 0.14 0.20 1.00 3.000 2.000 4.000 4.000 3.000 Maneuverability 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.20 0.33 1.00 5.000 4.000 5.000 4.000 Acquisition Cost 0.50 0.50 0.20 5.00 0.50 0.20 1.00 5.000 7.000 4.000 Operation Cost 1.00 0.33 0.25 3.00 0.25 0.25 0.20 1.00 6.000 4.000 Maintainability 0.33 0.50 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.14 0.17 1.00 5.000 Availability 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 1.00 Sum 5.03 7.83 7.38 22.93 23.67 19.90 17.79 22.75 37.20 32.00 A Microsoft Excel template for carrying out computations was used (Pyzdek, 2014). Through this template, a normalized matrix (Table 7), priority vector (Table 8) and consistency ratio was calculated. The consistency ratio determined was less than one; hence, the degree of consistency was acceptable. The following table clearly displays how the template was designed to add the figures and information. The table shows that the service ceiling value under the PTC column was up to 0.41, thus making it the highest value in the table, while 0.01 is the most frequent and lowest value shown in the matrix. The table has a number of uniform values which pointedly shows the consistency. IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 257 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Table 7 Standardized matrix for criteria Service Ceiling MTOW PTC Combat Radius Cruising Speed Maneuverability Acquisition Cost Operation Cost Maintainability Availability Service Ceiling 0.20 0.38 0.41 0.13 0.21 0.10 0.11 0.04 0.08 0.06 MTOW 0.07 0.13 0.27 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.03 PTC 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.18 0.11 0.16 Combat Radius 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.09 Cruising Speed 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.15 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.09 Maneuverability 0.10 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.28 0.18 0.13 0.13 Acquisition Cost 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.22 0.19 0.13 Operation Cost 0.20 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.13 Maintainability 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.16 Availability 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 As the table shows the finalized calculated figures of priority vectors, we can see that the availability and maintainability values are the lowest total values in comparison to other factors. Moreover, the Precision Target Capability priority vector values are estimated to be the highest amongst all as shown in the table. Table 8 Priority vector for criteria Criteria Priority Vector Service Ceiling 0.173045816 MTOW 0.123824884 PTC 0.184514908 Combat Radius 0.08809149 Cruising Speed 0.078225126 Maneuverability 0.097506387 Acquisition Cost 0.102863666 Operation Cost 0.07705485 Maintainability 0.039176898 Availability 0.035695973 IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 258 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 In the end, the overall priority matrix was developed accordingly as shown in Table 9. This matrix was necessary in order to deduce a final conclusion pertaining to aircraft alternatives and their rankings. Table 9 Overall priority vector and ranking of results Alternatives Overall Priority Ranking Dassault Rafale 0.078673059 6 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 0.09445625 5 Mikoyan MiG-35 0.224425901 1 Sukhoi Su-35 0.220934651 2 Chengdu J-10 0.193553652 3 PAC JF-17 Thunder 0.187956487 4 The results, as shown in Table 9, are that the top three choices should be MiG-35, Su- 35 and J-10. Furthermore, a Cost Benefit Analysis was applied to counter examine these results. The table depicts the ranking under the grading scale ranging from 1-10 with 1 being the highest value and top rank in the scale to 10 being the lowest and least ranked amongst the choices available. Thus, the top ranked alternatives are MiG-35, Su-35 and J-10 which received the rankings of 1, 2, and 3 respectively. While on the other hand, Dassault Rafale received the lowest rank with a value of 6, which is least likely to be selected as a suitable alternative. Therefore, this table gives a precisely perfect idea of the final results In order to determine the final results, a Cost Benefit Analysis methodology was carefully administrated. 3.2 Cost Benefit Analysis Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) deals with an inspection of a certain process to be performed in order to verify if carrying out such an activity is economically viable. The process generally involves an inspection of various indirect and direct costs incurred on the data. Following the determination of costs, any values of tangible and intangible benefits are gathered and assigned numeric values. These values are then gathered and compared with each other to yield a comparison and determine whether the benefits attained at a certain expense yield a project that is economically viable or not. Further study on the CBA may involve looking at a payback period. This would evaluate the benefits of the cost and see if during that period whether the investment on a project would equal the benefits that are being strived for and would from then onwards, convert the net cash flow on the project to benefits for the investor. That being said, a similar analysis has been performed earlier as a study (Kyriazis & Salavrakos, 2006). The CBA presented in this paper was comparable to the study done for Hellenic Air Force. However, due to the similar nature of the problem being dealt with in this scenario, the strategy of inspection was kept similar to the one proposed in the earlier study. Since the study required the execution of an exact Cost Benefit Analysis, it IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 259 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 could become intricately complex owing to the indefinite nature of Military, Strategic, Economic and Social Benefits. Therefore, the study was redefined to adopt a factor of Efficiency-Cost Indicator (ECI) which was calculated for every fighting aircraft as conducted in the aforementioned study. Once again, the purpose of the study is to conduct a verification of the results being obtained by the AHP and as such, a detailed study of the CBA, though it may be recommended for future considerations, would not allow for an efficient final result in this study. Efficiency Cost Indicator = ( Efficiency Score) Cost ) The value of the Efficiency Score was determined on the basis of a selected set of technical characteristics and relative weights associated to each characteristic. The weights were given numeric values based on the responses from the surveys that were distributed to various aeronautics and air defense officials, while the ratings were determined on the basis of a comparative study conducted on the basis of a detailed literature review of the technical specifications and comparative data of each aircraft. The Total Weighted Score or the Efficiency Score for each aircraft was determined as the sum of weighted scores. These scores were obtained as a product of the weight attributed to each technical criteria and the rating each aircraft attained in the said criteria. Efficiency Scores for each alternative are shown in Table 10. The table illustrates the measure of efficiency of each alternative in a percentage rating. It is evident from the table and figures that the total efficiency score with regards to weight is 25. Moreover, the combat radius is only 50% with regards to weighted rating which is the lowest among other factors. The Cost was determined as a sum of Acquisition Cost and Operation Cost. The Operation Cost of each aircraft was evaluated on a steady run of the aircraft at standard conditions for a single hour of operation. This data was obtained from the technical manuals of the aircraft manufacturing firms. The evaluation of costs is shown in Table 11. This table shows the tallied costs in USD of the alternative aircrafts respectively. As shown in the table, the highest total cost is of the Dassault Rafale aircraft which is measured as 130.028 million USD. The table also shows that the lowest total price is of the JF-17 Thunder, which is astonishing. IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 260 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Table 10 Efficiency scores for each alternative Criteria W e ig h t Dassault Rafale Saab JAS 39 Gripen Mikoyan Mig-35 Sukhoi Su-35 Chengdu J-10 PAC JF- 17 Thunder R a tin g W e ig h te d sc o re R a tin g W e ig h te d sc o re R a tin g W e ig h te d sc o re R a tin g W e ig h te d sc o re R a tin g W e ig h te d sc o re R a tin g W e ig h te d sc o re Service Ceiling 2 70% 1.4 70% 1.4 90% 1.8 90% 1.8 100 % 2 60% 1.2 MTOW 3 70% 2.1 40% 1.2 80% 2.4 100% 3 50% 1.5 30% 0.9 PTC 5 80% 4 40% 2 70% 3.5 100% 5 50% 2.5 20% 1 Combat Radius 4 50% 2 90% 3.6 70% 2.8 100% 4 50% 2 90% 3.6 Cruising Speed 3 70% 2.1 90% 2.7 100% 3 90% 2.7 90% 2.7 70% 2.1 Maneuverability 1 80% 0.8 60% 0.6 100% 1 100% 1 80% 0.8 50% 0.5 Maintainability 4 80% 3.2 80% 3.2 70% 2.8 70% 2.8 100 % 4 100% 4 Availability 3 60% 1.8 50% 1.5 100% 3 100% 3 80% 2.4 80% 2.4 Efficiency Scores 25 17.4 16.2 20.3 23.3 17.9 15.7 Table 11 Evaluation of costs Alternatives Acquisition Cost (USD) Operation Cost (USD/hour) Total Cost (USD) Total Cost (Million USD) Dassault Rafale 130,000,000 28,000 130,028,000 130.028 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 45,000,000 28,001 45,028,001 45.008 Mikoyan Mig- 35 55,000,000 28,002 55,028,002 55.016 Sukhoi Su-35 75,000,000 28,003 75,028,003 75.036 Chengdu J-10 35,000,000 28,004 35,028,004 35.005 PAC JF- 17 Thunder 25,000,000 28,005 25,028,005 25.004 IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 261 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Table 12 ECI of alternatives Alternatives ECI Ranking Dassault Rafale 0.133817332 6 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 0.359936011 4 Mikoyan Mig-35 0.368983568 3 Sukhoi Su-35 0.310517618 5 Chengdu J-10 0.511355521 2 PAC JF-17 Thunder 0.627899536 1 As shown in Table 12, the results show the PAC JF-17 Thunder as an optimal air combat aircraft. This assessment is based on the technical characteristics and economic constraints, and is followed in rank by the Chengdu J-10 and Mikoyan MiG-35. Surprisingly, we see that the JF-Thunder has the highest ranking among other aircrafts, while the Dassault Rafale aircraft has the lowest ranking after all the calculations. Thus, a long procedure with various calculations using these methodologies is needed in order to determine the conclusions effectively. This table presents a clear view of one that is the most suitable option for the purposes of this study. 4. Discussion of results Combat Aircraft Fleet Planning is a process of strategic importance for an air force engaged on multiple fronts with warfare ranging from conventional air superiority to precision driven, counter-insurgency operations. Procurement or development of such aircraft requires huge defense budget expenditures, thereby rendering selection of an appropriate aircraft, a key determinant of effectiveness of a modern air force. Hence, when selecting an aircraft, the operational requirements of an air force must be carefully evaluated, keeping in view the economic and geopolitical challenges related to defense procurements. The air force is interested in acquiring the best possible aircraft in adequate numbers. The opposition between the requirements and constraints need to be dealt with, ensuring a perfect tradeoff to approach the optimal selection. The combat aircraft selection problem for the Pakistan Air Force was considered in this paper. Keeping in view the fiscal defense budget of Pakistan, the requirement of precision target capability and geopolitical constraints, six alternatives were shortlisted. By further considering technical and financial characteristics as criteria (Service ceiling, MTOW, Precision Target Capability, Combat Radius, Cruising Speed, Maneuverability, Acquisition Cost, Operation Cost, Maintainability and Availability), various aspects of an aircraft purchase were evaluated. The results show that by using the AHP, the MiG-35 turns out to be the best possible solution, closely followed by Su-35. Even though the MiG-35 outweighs the technologically superior Su-35, in both acquisition and operational cost, the Su-35 outweighs the MiG-35 in precision targeting capability. The other aspects of both aircraft are somewhat similar. CBA was applied to ensure that the constraint of cost was not exceeded, and ensuring that financial constraints were taken into consideration. Application of CBA to our six alternatives proved that the locally IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 262 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 manufactured JF-17 is the most economical choice, closely followed by the J-10. The JF-17 is a technologically inferior aircraft in comparison to the J-10; however, the ECI for both aircrafts closely matches. Therefore, the J-10 could be considered a better option over the JF-17, fulfilling both the technological and financial constraints. Basing a conclusion on the results of the three independent analyses performed, the Mikoyan MiG-35 offers the best solution to the stated problem since it possesses an optimal trade-off between the technological requirement and the budget limitations. 5. Conclusion Multi-Criteria Decision making is a well-known branch of decision making. The AHP is one of the most commonly used methods for decision making in the literature. In our study, we focused on the problem of aircraft selection for the Pakistan Air Force in order to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror. This however is not only a problem of the Pakistan Air Force, for today’s growing and competitive military air forces, aircraft selection is so important. The results of the three methods of assessment showed different aircraft leading by a small margin. However, it may be noted that the order of preference of the alternatives hints at the reoccurrence of some alternatives. The MiG-35 turns out to be the best possible solution, closely followed by Su-35 as seen in the AHP application, while the Su-35 turns out to be the best option followed by J-10 and MiG-35. However, CBA concludes that the JF-17 is the most economical choice, closely followed by the J-10 Chengdu and the MiG-35. Owing to its reoccurrence in the preferred order of selection on the basis of the analyses conducted, it was concluded that the MiG-35 is the optimal choice in the case of a fleet up gradation scenario for PAF. For the future research, the problem can be solved by other MCDM techniques and the solutions can be compared. Also, AHP and ANP with fuzzy numbers could be used for the aircraft selection processes for military air forces, and intelligent software which calculate solutions automatically can be developed. 6. Future considerations A general observation of the results recommends that the Pakistan Air Force should consider the J-10, Su-35 and Mig-35 as its top choices. The final choice amongst these three aircrafts can only be realized when the economic and geopolitical constraints have been well specified. The Su-35 provides the best solution if Pakistan can manage to negotiate the price and ensure a guaranteed supply of spares and expert backing. Nevertheless, if the Pakistan Air Force could manage to upgrade the J-10 to the tier of its contenders as it did for the Mirage 3 while keeping its cost within the desired range, the J-10 could be the best option for Pakistan Air Force. Alternately, the Mig-35 could serve as the desired option in the case where Russia agrees to furnish a continuous supply of spares and technical backing, but disagrees to negotiate the price. As such, it may be affirmed that even though a resolution has been achieved after a well-constructed and much thought out strategy as presented in the determinations of this composition, further written reports relating to a more detailed economic IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 263 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 situation (which includes the time based fluctuation of the economy, an assessment of the Internal Rate of Return and Net Present Value) and a thorough political analysis of the case is recommended which may offer a more accurate answer to the scenario. IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 264 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 REFERENCES 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: https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770210442680 Dožić, S. & Kalić, M. (2014). An AHP approach to aircraft selection process. Transportation Research Procedia, 3, 165-174. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.102 Dožić, S. & Kalić, M. (2015_. Comparison of two MCDM methodologies in aircraft type selection problem. Transportation Research Procedia, 10, 910-919. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.044 Forman, E. H. & Gass, S. I. (2001). The Analytic Hierarchy Process—an exposition. Operations Research, 49, 469-486. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.4.469.11231 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023 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. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770210442680 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146514002658#! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146514002658#! https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.102 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146514002658#! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146514002658#! https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.044 https://doi.org/%7B0%7D https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023 IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 265 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Pyzdek, T. (2014). AHP spreadsheet [Online]. Available: http://sixsigmatraining.com/six-sigma-tools/ahp-spreadsheet.html. 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I 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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2014.12.028 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: https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570010358348 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. http://sixsigmatraining.com/six-sigma-tools/ahp-spreadsheet.html https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2014.12.028 https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570010358348 https://doi.org/10.1109/ASC-ICSC.2008.4675442 IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 266 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.07.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.07.003 IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 267 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 APPENDIX A a. List of experts and their PAF experience RANK OFFICERS REPRESENTATION YEARS OF EXPERTISE NUMBER OF RESPONSES AIR COMMODORE Air Cdre Minimum 10-13 Years 12 GROUP CAPTAIN Gp Capt Minimum 8-10 Years 16 WING COMMANDER Wg Cdr Minimum 5-10 Years 22 SQUADRON LEADER Sqn Ldr Minimum 5-10 Years 11 FLIGHT LIEUTENANT Flt Lt Minimum 5 Years 28 FLYING OFFICER Flg Off Minimum 3 Years 36 PILOT OFFICER Plt Off Minimum 3 Years 18 CIVILIAN GAZETTED OFFICERS GO Minimum 5 Years 25 MINISTERIAL STAFF ML Minimum 5 Years 10 TECHNICAL STAFF TL Minimum 5 Years 20 GROUND COMBATIERS GC Minimum 8 Years 22 IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 268 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 b. Questionnaire Questionnaire Purpose: Pakistan's role in the War on Terror is a widely discussed topic among policy- makers of various countries and political analysts around the world. Recent crashes, retirement of old fighter jets and ongoing war on terror has increased the need to purchase new modern aircraft. Hence, there is a need for procurement of such modern aircrafts so as to increase our efficiency in war on terror in Pakistan. Questionnaire Methodology: We will use Multi-criteria Decision Making, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in particular, for our objective. AHP uses a hierarchical structure and pair-wise comparisons. This technique requires data to develop a decision matrix showing pair-wise comparisons between the decision criteria. Questionnaire: Please mark a cross (X) in the boxes given in the following tables for pair-wise comparisons of the following criteria: 1. Service ceiling 2. Maximal Take-off Weight (MTOW) 3. Precision Target Capability 4. Combat Radius 5. Maximum Cruising Speed 6. Maneuverability 7. Acquisition Cost 8. Operation Cost 9. Maintainability 10. Availability IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 269 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 1. Combat Radius Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Strongly Preferred (5) Moderately Preferred (3) Equally Preferred (1) Combat Radius Service Ceiling Combat Radius MTOW Combat Radius Precision Target Capability Combat Radius Cruising Speed Combat Radius Maneuverability Combat Radius Acquisition Cost Combat Radius Operation Cost Combat Radius Maintainability Combat Radius Availability 2. Service Ceiling Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Strongly Preferred (5) Moderatel y Preferred (3) Equally Preferred (1) Service Ceiling MTOW Service Ceiling Precision Target Capability Service Ceiling Combat Radius Service Ceiling Cruising Speed Service Ceiling Maneuverability Service Ceiling Acquisition Cost Service Ceiling Operation Cost Service Ceiling Maintainability Service Ceiling Availability IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 270 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 3. Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW) Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Strongly Preferred (5) Moderately Preferred (3) Equally Preferred (1) MTOW Precision Target Capability MTOW Combat Radius MTOW Service Ceiling MTOW Cruising Speed MTOW Maneuverability MTOW Acquisition Cost MTOW Operation Cost MTOW Maintainability MTOW Availability 4. Precision Target Capability Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Stron gly Prefer red (5) Moderate ly Preferred (3) Equal ly Prefer red (1) Precision Target Capability Combat Radius Precision Target Capability Cruising Speed Precision Target Capability Maneuverabi lity Precision Target Capability Acquisition Cost Precision Target Capability Operation Cost Precision Target Capability Maintainabil ity Precision Target Capability Availability IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 271 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 5. Availability Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Strongly Preferred (5) Moderately Preferred (3) Equally Preferred (1) Availability Precision Target Capability Availability Combat Radius Availability Service Ceiling Availability Cruising Speed Availability Maneuvera bility Availability Acquisition Cost Availability Operation Cost Availability Maintainab ility 6. Cruising Speed Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Strongly Preferred (5) Moderately Preferred (3) Equally Preferred (1) Cruising Speed Maneuverability Cruising Speed Acquisition Cost Cruising Speed Operation Cost Cruising Speed Maintainability Cruising Speed Availability 7. Maneuverability Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Strongly Preferred (5) Moderately Preferred (3) Equally Preferred (1) Maneuverability Acquisition Cost Maneuverability Operation Cost Maneuverability Maintainability Maneuverability Availability IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 272 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 8. Acquisition Cost Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Strongly Preferred (5) Moderately Preferred (3) Equally Preferred (1) Acquisition Cost Operation Cost Acquisition Cost Maintainability Acquisition Cost Availability 9. Operation Cost Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Strongly Preferred (5) Moderately Preferred (3) Equally Preferred (1) Operation Cost Maintainability Operation Cost Availability 10. Maintainability Extremely Preferred (9) Very Strongly Preferred (7) Strongly Preferred (5) Moderately Preferred (3) Equally Preferred (1) Maintainability Availability IJAHP Article: Ali, Asghar, Muhammad/Selection of a fighter aircraft to improve the effectiveness of air combat in the war on terror: Pakistan Air Force- a case in point International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 273 Vol. 9 Issue 2 2017 ISSN 1936-6744 https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.489 Glossary Term Definition Service Ceiling The service ceiling is the altitude at which the maximum rate of climb is 100 ft/min. (0.5 m/s) for piston powered aircraft or 500 ft/min (2.5 m/s) for jet powered aircraft. MTOW The maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of an aircraft is the maximum weight at which the pilot is allowed to attempt to take off, due to structural or other limits. Precision Target Capability Precision Targeting Capability refers to the attempted aerial execution of a target with some degree of accuracy, with the aim of limiting collateral damage. Combat Radius Combat radius is a related measure based on the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves. Cruising Speed Cruise is level flight after an aircraft climbs to a set altitude and before it begins to descend. Commercial, defense or passenger aircraft are usually designed for optimum performance at their cruise speed. Maneuverability Maneuverability is the quality in an aircraft which determines the rate at which its attitude and direction of flight can be changed. Acquisition Cost Acquisition Cost may include the negotiated and agreed cost of buying the aircraft and additional costs that can be capitalized and include payments for purchase rights or purchase options. These are distinct from manufacturer credits, and include amounts paid to secure the right to buy a certain aircraft at a certain time. Operation Cost Operation Cost includes direct and indirect, fixed and variable costs incurred to enable the aircraft to attain usefulness in operation. This may include Maintenance Cost and Cost incurred due to fuel expenditure whilst airborne. Maintainability Maintainability is defined as the probability of performing a successful repair action within a given time. In other words, maintainability measures the ease and speed with which a system can be restored to operational status after a failure occurs. Availability Availability is the degree to which a system, subsystem or equipment is in a specified operable and committable state at the start of a mission, when the mission is called for at an unknown, i.e. a random, time.