Method for Military-Economic Assessment of Reconnaissance Unmanned Aerial Systems for Selecting a Rational Alternative
Abstract
Purpose. To develop a method for the military-economic assessment of reconnaissance unmanned aerial systems (UASs) that enables the substantiated selection of a rational alternative based on the “cost-effectiveness” criterion while accounting for electronic warfare conditions, reusability, and life-cycle cost.
Method. A systems approach; multi-criteria assessment using additive aggregation of normalised indicators; the Analytic Hierarchy Process for determining weighting coefficients; group expert assessment involving 12 experts; life-cycle cost methodology; scenario-based adjustment of the combat-effectiveness indicator to operating conditions; computational experiment and sensitivity analysis.
Findings. A four-block method for the military-economic assessment of reconnaissance UASs was developed, comprising input-data formation, preparatory calculations, determination of an integrated combat-effectiveness indicator, and decision-making. A system of nine partial indicators grouped into reconnaissance capabilities, survivability, and operational properties was proposed. Weighting coefficients were determined using the Analytic Hierarchy Process based on group expert assessment. Threshold screening of alternatives by the minimum acceptable level of adjusted combat effectiveness was introduced, followed by ranking of admissible alternatives according to the “cost-effectiveness” criterion. In the computational experiment involving twelve conditional alternatives, UAS-08 was identified as the rational alternative (K = 0.0626); it retained first rank across all five sensitivity-analysis scenarios examined.
Methodological implications. The study improves the methodological framework for the military-economic assessment of reconnaissance unmanned aerial systems by integrating multi-criteria combat-effectiveness assessment, life-cycle cost, reusability, electronic warfare conditions, and threshold admissibility constraints within a single decision-support procedure. The proposed approach can support analysis of alternatives in defence planning, armament development, and defence procurement.
Article type: methodical, computational and analytical.
Downloads
References
Kunertova, D. (2023). Drones have boots: Learning from Russia’s war in Ukraine. Contemporary Security Policy, 44(4), 576–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2262792
Terzić, M. (2022). Critical review of the protection of aircraft defense forces during the conflict in Nagorno Karabah in 2020. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 33(6), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2021.2025286
DeVore, M. R. (2023). “No end of a lesson:” Observations from the first high-intensity drone war. Defense & Security Analysis, 39(2), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2023.2178571
Lehtonen, J. M., & Virtanen, K. (2022). Choosing the most economically advantageous tender using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach. Journal of Public Procurement, 22(2), 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-06-2021-0040
McIvor, L., & Chakrabortty, R. K. (2022). Multi-criteria decision making in a multi-method framework with application in capability acquisition and enhancement. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(10), 1816–1821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.662
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4
Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., & Kılınç, N. (2009). Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 8143–8151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.016
Hamurcu, M., & Eren, T. (2020). Selection of unmanned aerial vehicles by using multicriteria decision-making for defence. Journal of Mathematics, 2020, Article 4308756. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4308756
Keleş, N. (2024). A comparative evaluation of multi-criteria decision-making framework for armed unmanned aerial vehicle. International Journal of Intelligent Unmanned Systems, 12(4), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIUS-03-2023-0026
Erkeç, T. Y., Erdoğan, F. A., Aygün, S., & Sağbaş, M. (2025). UAV selection using fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE method. Journal of Aviation, 9(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.1545474
Smit, M. C. (2012). A North Atlantic Treaty Organisation framework for life cycle costing. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 25(4–5), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2011.562541
Mardo, M. (2024). The principles of life cycle costing of the assets of the defence forces. Sõjateadlane. The Estonian Journal of Military Studies, 19. https://doi.org/10.15157/st.vi19.24131
Mazur, V. (2026). Analysis of existing methods for calculating the cost of the stage of use of weapons and military equipment in the system of their life cycle management. Social Development and Security, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2026.16.2.27
Díaz Cuesta, M., Soto, S. V., & Vera, C. J. V. (2026). Forecasting life cycle costs of weapon systems: An open source approach with artificial intelligence. Journal of Forecasting, 45(5), 2606–2628. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.70151
NATO Research and Technology Organization. (2003). Cost structure and life cycle costs for military systems (RTO Technical Report TR-058). NATO Research and Technology Organization.
Steen, R., Håheim-Saers, N., & Aukland, G. (2024). Military unmanned aerial vehicle operations through the lens of a high-reliability system: Challenges and opportunities. Risk, Hazards, & Crisis in Public Policy, 15, 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12279
Ren, J., Xing, L., & Lin, Y.-K. (2026). Unmanned aerial vehicles-based mission reliability in collaborative, heterogeneous, and dynamic environments. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 42(1), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.70068
Guo, J., & Elsayed, E. A. (2019). Reliability of balanced multi-level unmanned aerial vehicles. Computers & Operations Research, 106, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2019.01.013
Petritoli, E., Leccese, F., & Ciani, L. (2018). Reliability and maintenance analysis of unmanned aerial vehicles. Sensors, 18(9), 3171. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18093171
Clothier, R. A., Williams, B. P., & Fulton, N. L. (2017). Unmanned aerial vehicle safety assessment modelling through Petri Nets. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 167, 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.06.021
Usage of noise jamming techniques for the unmanned aerial vehicle self-protection electronic warfare system against frequency agile radars. (2025). Franklin Open, 12, 100306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fraope.2025.100306
Abstract views: 21 PDF Downloads: 12
Copyright (c) 2026 Володимир Коваль, Юзеф Добровольський, Артем Ремез, Роман Дзюбчук, Василь Загородній, Сергій Ротте
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
