Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are increasingly used in the military field. Especially in recent years, UAVs have been a very effective instrument in gaining airspace superiority and military success. Many countries compete with each other to develop better UAV technology or improve the technical features of UAVs. Therefore, it is critical to determine which UAV has the best performance, considering technical and operational characteristics, because the vehicles with more advanced performance can provide countries with strategic superiority. The purpose of this study is to investigate the technical, cost, and operational performance of Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAVs (MALE UAVs). In the study, as a result of a wide literature review, we determined a performance criterion for this type of vehicle. The model presented here uses an Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Analytical Hierarch Process (IT2FAHP) and an Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (IT2FTOPSIS) hybrid method. The findings indicate that some MALE UAVs have superior technical and operational performance over others and demonstrate that range, max take-off weight, and payload are important criteria in determining the performance and superiority of these vehicles.
AslanM.Y. Savaş Hukukunun Temel Prensipleri, Türkiye Barolar Birliğ Derg, (2008), 235–274.
2.
SaundersR. and SouvaM., Air superiority and battlefield victory, Res Polit7 (2020), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168020972816.
3.
AshworthN. Air power can win wars, Aust Def Force J 1995, 13–15. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.951110673.
4.
DugalC., A war won in the skies: Air superiority in the Second World War, 666, 2010;.
5.
MacrinaG., DiL., PuglieseP., GuerrieroF., LaporteG. Drone-aided routing: A literature review 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102762.
6.
PalmerT.S. and GeisJ.P., Defeating Small Civilian Unmanned Aerial Systems to Maintain Air Superiority, , Air Sp Power J31 (2017), 102–118.
7.
MintzJ.P. Asymmetric Air Warfare: A Paradigm Shift for US Air Superiority, 2013..
8.
MilanF.F. and TabriziA.B., Armed, unmanned, and in high demand: the drivers behind combat drones proliferation in the Middle East, Small Wars Insur31 (2020), 730–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2020.1743488.
9.
BBC. Combat drones:We are in a newera ofwarfare - here’s why - BBC News, 2022.
10.
Insider,World RethinksWar As Nearly 100 Countries Field Military Drones, Businessinsider, 2021.
11.
RoyB. Paradigms and Challenges, In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., editor. Mult. Criteria Decis. Anal. State Art Surv., Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.; 2005, p. 3–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/b100605.
12.
TsengM.L., LinY.H., ChiuA.S.F. and LiaoJ.C.H., Using FANP approach on selection of competitive priorities based on cleaner production implementation: A case study in PCB manufacturer, Taiwan, Clean Technol Environ Policy10 (2008), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-007-0109-4.
13.
KahramanC. and KayaI., A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives, Expert Syst Appl37 (2010), 6270–6281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.095.
ZadehL.A., The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I, Inf Sci (Ny)8 (1975), 199–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5.
16.
Uçal SariI., ÖztayşiB., KahramanC.Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Using Type-2 Fuzzy Sets: An Application to Warehouse Location Selection, In: Doumpos, M., E. Grigoroudis, editor. Multicriteria Decis, Aid Artif. Intell., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2013, p. 285–308. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118522516.ch12.
17.
The Week, The future of drone warfare | The Week 2021.
18.
BakırM., AkanŞ.ÖzdemirE., Regional aircraft selection with fuzzy piprecia and fuzzy marcos: a case study of the Turkish airline industry, Facta Univ Ser Mech Eng19 (2021), 423–445.
19.
DozićS. and KalićM., Aircraft Type Selection Problem: Application of Different MCDM Methods, Adv Intell Syst Comput572 (2018), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57105-8 7.
20.
KiracıK. and BakırM., Application of Commercial Aircraft Selection in Aviation Industry Through Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods, Celal Bayar Ü niversitesi Sos Bilim Derg16 (2018), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.505987.
21.
KiracıK. and AkanE., Aircraft selection by applying AHP and TOPSIS in interval type-2 fuzzy sets, J Air Transp Manag89 (2020), 101924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101924.
22.
DožićS., Multi-criteria decision making methods: Application in the aviation industry,J Air Transp Manag79 (2019), 101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAIRTRAMAN.2019.101683.
23.
DeveciM., DemirelN.Ç. and AhmetoğluE., Airline new route selection based on interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM: A case study of new route between Turkey-North American region destinations, J Air Transp Manag 59 (2017), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAIRTRAMAN.2016.11.013.
24.
DeveciM., ÖzcanE., JohnR. and ÖnerS.C., Interval type-2 hesitant fuzzy set method for improving the service quality of domestic airlines in Turkey, J Air Transp Manag69 (2018), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAIRTRAMAN.2018.01.008.
25.
GörenerA., AyvazB., KusakcıA.O. and AltınokE., A hybrid type-2 fuzzy based supplier performance evaluation methodology: The Turkish Airlines technic case, Appl Soft Comput56 (2017), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2017.03.026.
26.
Sánchez-LozanoJ.M. and RodríguezO.N., Application of Fuzzy Reference Ideal Method (FRIM) to the military advanced training aircraft selection, Appl Soft Comput J88 (2020), 106061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106061.
27.
MaywaldJ.D., ReimanA.D., OverstreetR.E. and JohnsonA.W., Aircraft selection modeling: a multi-step heuristic to enumerate airlift alternatives, Ann Oper Res274 (2019), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2933-9.
28.
MiyoshiC. and MasonK.J., The carbon emissions of selected airlines and aircraft types in three geographic markets, J Air Transp Manag15 (2009), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAIRTRAMAN.2008.11.009.
29.
MahashabdeA., WolfeP., AshokA., DorbianC., HeQ., FanA., et al., Assessing the environmental impacts of aircraft noise and emissions, Prog Aerosp Sci47 (2011), 15–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAEROSCI.2010.04.003.
30.
LeeJ.J., LukachkoS.P., WaitzI.A. and SchaferA., Historical and future trends in aircraft performance, cost, and emissions, Annu Rev Energy Environ26 (2001), 167–200. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV.ENERGY.26.1.167.
31.
HuangR., RiddleM., GrazianoD., WarrenJ., DasS. and NimbalkarS., Energy and emissions saving potential of additive manufacturing: the case of lightweight aircraft components, Annu Rev Energy Environ26 (2001), 1559–1570. shttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.04.109.
32.
PanagiotouP. and YakinthosK., Aerodynamic efficiency and performance enhancement of fixed-wing UAVs, Aerosp Sci Technol99 (2020), 105575. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AST.2019.105575.
33.
ElmeseiryN., AlshaerN. and IsmailT., A Detailed Survey and Future Directions of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) with Potential Applications, Aerosp8 (2021), 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE8120363.
HannR., EnacheA., NielsenM.C., StovnerB.N., van BeeckJ., JohansenT.A., et al., Experimental Heat Loads for Electrothermal Anti-Icing and De-Icing on UAVs, Aerosp8 (2021), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE8030083.
36.
BashanV., DemirelH. and GulM., An FMEA-based TOPSIS approach under single valued neutrosophic setsfor maritime risk evaluation: the case of ship navigation safety, Soft Comput24 (2020), 18749–18764. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00500-020-05108-Y/TABLES/122.
37.
KayaA., BashanV. and UstY., Selection of marine type air compressor by using fuzzy VIKOR methodology: 236 (2021), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/14750902211028791.
38.
BashanV., DemirelH. and GulM., A novel risk evaluation approach for frequently encountered risks in ship engine rooms, Brodogr Teor i Praksa Brodogr i Pomor Teh71 (2020), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.21278/BROD71203.
39.
CelikE., GulM., AydinN., GumusA.T. and GuneriA.F., A comprehensive review of multi criteria decision making approaches based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Knowledge-Based Syst85 (2015), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.06.004.
40.
GoswamiS.S. and BeheraD.K., Solving Material Handling Equipment Selection Problems in an Industry with the Help of Entropy Integrated COPRAS and ARAS MCDM techniques, Process Integr Optim Sustain5 (2021), 947–973 https://doi.org/10.1007/S41660-021-00192-5/FIGURES/15.
41.
ChodhaV., DubeyR., KumarR., SinghS. and KaurS., Selection of industrial arc welding robot with TOPSIS and Entropy MCDM techniques, Mater Today Proc50 (2022), 709–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2021.04.487.
42.
ZengJ., AnM. and SmithN.J., Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment, Int J Proj Manag25 (2007), 589–600 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2007.02.006.
43.
MendelJ.M., JohnR.I. and LiuF., Interval type2 fuzzy logic systems made simple, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst14 (2006) , 808–821. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.879986.
ChenS.M. and LeeL.W., Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOP-SIS method, Fuzzy Sets Syst17 (1985), 2790–2798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.09.012.
46.
SaatyT.L. The analytical hierarchy process, planning, priority setting, resource allocation, New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1980.
47.
BüyüközkanG., KahramanC. and RuanD., A fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach for software development strategy selection, Int J Gen Syst33 (2004), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081070310001633581.
48.
KahramanC., ÖztaysiB., Uçal SariI. and Turanoğcaron;luE., Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Knowledge-Based Syst59 (2014), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.KNOSYS.2014.02.001.
49.
HwangC.-L., YoonK.Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Mult Attrib Decis Mak Methods Appl A State-of-the-Art Surv, Berlin, Heidelberg: SpringerBerlin Heidelberg; 1981, p. 58–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-93.
50.
LeeL.-W. and ChenS.-M., Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the extension of TOP-SIS method and interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Mult Attrib Decis Mak Methods Appl A State-of-the-Art Surv6 (1981), 3260–3265. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLC.2008.4620968.
51.
FilipponeA., Data and performances of selected aircraft and rotorcraft, Prog Aerosp Sci36 (2000), 629–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-0421(00)00011-7.
52.
ArdilC., A Comparative Analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Methods in Military Fighter Aircra Selection, , Int J Aerosp Mech Eng14:(2020), 275–288.
53.
GattiM., GiuliettiF. and TurciM., Maximum endurance for battery-powered rotary-wing aircraft, Aerosp Sci Technol45 (2015), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AST.2015.05.009.
54.
BlakeyS., RyeL. and WilsonC.W., Aviation gas turbine alternative fuels: A review, Aerosp Sci Technol45 (2015), 2863–2885. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCI.2010.09.011.
55.
KirnerR., RaffaelliL., RoltA., LaskaridisP., DoulgerisG. and SinghR., An assessment of distributed propulsion: Advanced propulsion system architectures for conventional aircraft configurations, Aerosp Sci Technol46 (2015), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AST.2015.06.022.
56.
HudaZ., EdiP., AlmajidA.A. and Al-GarniA.Z., New Trends in Designing Markets, Configurations, and Materials for Very Light Jet Aircrafts, J Aerosp Eng25 (2012), 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000125.
57.
KiracıK. and BakırM., Using the Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods in Aircraft Selection Problems and an Application, J Transp Logist3 (2018), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.26650/jtl.2018.03.01.02.
58.
ArreerasS. and ArimuraM., Astudy on shelter airport selection during large-scale volcanic disasters using CARATS open dataset, Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol129 (2021), 103263. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRC.2021.103263.
59.
AbuK., A Physics-Based Multidisciplinary Approach for the Preliminary Design and Performance Analysis of a Medium Range Aircraft with Box-Wing Architecture, Aerosp8 (2021), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE8100292.
60.
KallinderisY., VouvakosX. and MenounouP., Linear correlations of principal parameters for the preliminary design of twin civil jet aircraft,Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol81 (2009), 508–515. https://doi.org/10.1108/00022660910997801/FULL/PDF.
61.
YuL., YangQ. and DongL., Aircraft target detection using multimodal satellite-based data, Signal Processing155 (2019), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SIGPRO.2018.09.006.
62.
WangT.C. and ChangT.H., Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment, Expert Syst Appl33 (2007), 870–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2006.07.003.
63.
PapakostasN., PapachatzakisP., XanthakisV., MourtzisD. and ChryssolourisG., An approach to operational aircraft maintenance planning, Decis Support Syst48 (2010), 604–612. https://doi,org/10.1016/J.DSS.2009.11.010.
64.
YangZ. and YangG., Optimization of Aircraft Maintenance plan based on Genetic Algorithm, Phys Procedia33 (2012), 580–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PHPRO.2012.05.107.
65.
KamleS., KiteyR., MohiteP.M., UpadhyayC.S., VenkatesanC., YadavD. Design of Aircraft Structures: An Overview 2017, 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2143-512.
66.
BelousovA.I. and SapozhnikovA.Y., Synthesis of basic structural design of aircraft GTE based on genetic algorithms, Russ Aeronaut (Iz VUZ)582 58 (2015), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068799815020105.
67.
FanjoyR.O., YoungJ.P. The Transfer of Flight Training Procedures From an Advanced Airline Flight Simulator to the Classroom, Coll Aviat Rev Int 2001, 19. https://doi.org/10.22488/OKSTATE.18.100296.
68.
TuzkayaG., GülsünB., KahramanC. and ÖzgenD., An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application, Expert Syst Appl 37 (2010), 2853–2863. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2009.09.004.
69.
JamisonR.R., Power for the Long—Range Supersonic Airliner: A Paper read before the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences on June 18th, 1959. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol31 (1959), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/EB033155/FULL/XML.
70.
AkashA., RajV.S.J., SushmithaR., PrateekB., AdityaS. and SreehariV.M., Design and Analysis of VTOL Operated Intercity Electrical Vehicle for Urban Air Mobility,Electron11 (2021), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ELECTRONICS11010020.
71.
BoralS. and ChakrabortyS., Failure analysis of CNC machines due to human errors: An integrated IT2F-MCDM-based FMEA approach, Eng Fail Anal130, (2021), 105768. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2021.105768.
72.
LiouJ.J.H., ChangM.H., LoH.W. and HsuM.H., Application of an MCDM model with data mining techniques for green supplier evaluation and selection, Appl Soft Comput109 (2021), 107534. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2021.107534.
73.
Kayapinar KayaS.AycinE., An integrated interval type 2 fuzzy AHP and COPRAS-G methodologies for supplier selection in the era of Industry 4.0, Neural Comput Appl33 (2021), 10515–10535. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00521-021-05809-X/TABLES/12.
74.
KusakciS., YilmazM.K., KusakciA.O., SoweS. and NantembeleleF.A., Towards sustainable cities: A sustainability assessment study for metropolitan cities in Turkey via a hybridized IT2F-AHP and COPRAS approach, Sustain Cities Soc78 (2022), 103655. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2021.103655.
75.
NarayananR.G.L., IbeO.C. Joint Network for Disaster Relief and Search and Rescue Network Operations, Wirel Public Saf Networks 1 Overv Challenges 2015, 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78548-022-5.50006-6.
76.
RameshP.S., MurugaJ.V. Terrain imperatives for Mini unmanned aircraft systems applications, Int J Intell Unmanned Syst 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIUS-09-2020-0044/FULL/PDF.
