On Military Structures Layered by Technology

If you are interested in defence, you will have encountered the power struggle between the US and China and possible war scenarios. It is a much-studied and highly detailed subject. I find it more sensible to approach it in a simplified manner. Let us consider the possibility of naval warfare, for example. Numerous fleets from both sides will enter the battlefield. The war will consist of the sum of many battles between these fleets. So, let us put ourselves in the shoes of a fleet commander and look at the issue from a narrower perspective.

My naval force will have a core of combatants. Huge destroyers, support ships, amphibious forces, possibly aircraft carriers... A core that can sail the ocean. This force will travel long distances to reach the area where it will engage the enemy. To do this, I have covered a vast area and left a huge void behind me. If someone does not secure this void, I cannot fight with peace of mind. I would have to constantly look behind me and check.

Another issue will be facing and fighting the enemy. Of course, I have to use my core, but behind me is the ocean and in front of me is the sea. Behind me was empty, but in front of me are islands. So, I will first face the enemy, create a battle-tested battlefield for myself, pay the price with heavy losses, and I will also need a vanguard layer. As you can see, even a fleet commander needs a force consisting of three layers. Since human resources are limited, some of these will probably be robotic...

Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA)

As a fleet commander, we see a similar situation to the one we illustrated with the sea in other areas. For example, the CCA is the unmanned combat aircraft programme that the US Air Force values most. This acronym, which stands for Collaborative Combat Aircraft, aims to give one pilot control of multiple robotic jets. This will allow the pilot to assign the most dangerous tasks to the autonomous CCAs under their command. What I see is this: a robotic ‘enemy engagement layer’ is placed in front of the piloted fighter aircraft group/squadron.

You can develop different methods to control the vast area behind you. Or, relying on the nature of offensive air warfare, which occurs in waves and at a very fast pace, you could assign this task to the next wave. To avoid digressing, I prefer to focus on the confrontation layer for now. However, I must note that I see the issue of ‘covering the rear’ as much more important and different for Turkey than it is for the US.

Holding the Fire with Tongs

Truth and falsehood must await future experience, but Turkey is working on producing a fully-fledged unmanned combat aircraft. It is leaving the issue of a robotic jet that will cooperate with a manned combat aircraft for later. This is because Turkey and the US have different desires and needs. Budgets, investments, technologies, potential battlefields... In fact, we are different in most respects. For this reason, defence programmes should not be directly compared with each other.

However, this does not mean that we cannot draw a general framework or discuss the efforts of the two countries with their pros and cons. In fact, we must do this so that we know what conceptual basis to shape something on before we produce it. (CONOPS) Looking at the CCA project in this context, we see the need to hold fire with tongs. They want to create an adversary that will engage with robots before humans, wearing them down, but only able to cause limited damage to human elements with its remaining strength. Considering that the fuel and ammunition a fighter jet can carry are quite limited, this goal begins to seem even more logical.

Interpreting the Same Trend with Different Tools

Let us return to our homeland and examine the issue through the lens of a possible Turkish-Greek war. Also, let us not forget that Greece has the backing of Israel and the United States. We are still far from creating a front line that can engage the enemy with unmanned aircraft. So what kind of systems could replace them? When we look at the issue, taking into account the specific conditions of both countries' fronts, we see air defence systems. Greece's arming of its islands and establishment of an integrated air defence system is, in essence, not a defensive but an offensive step.

Looking at the plan in detail, we can say that an aircraft taking off from forward air bases such as Balıkesir, Bandırma and Çiğli would be under the influence of enemy missiles as soon as it leaves the ground. It is certain that radars and other sensors will be able to see much deeper. Greece can establish and operate this system within a year. We, on the other hand, will have to wait five to ten years just to have air defence systems that will cover our western front, for better or worse. Even if we achieve this, we will need to support it with new ways and means in order to advance deep into enemy territory.

So, how could Greece utilise this superiority? It could plan a unilateral and offensive air campaign. It would feel secure within its own territory. It would exploit all our vulnerabilities and penetrate as deep as possible. The material damage it would cause would be a significant advantage for Greece and would force our country to spend years healing its wounds. These days, we are seeing Greece openly discussing plans for a pre-emptive strike against our country. We even know that it is planning to form joint forces with Israel and Southern Cyprus. This brings to mind the saying: if there is a gun hanging on the theatre set, it will go off before the play ends...

Of course, the ideal time for this development would be during Trump's presidency. For the US, with its so-called friendship, will stall Turkey and delay its defence programmes as much as possible; it will also achieve the ideal starting move for the disintegration of NATO without getting its hands dirty. For, by its very nature, a Turkish-Greek war will inevitably trigger the process of the alliance's disintegration.

Our Country's Unique Position

To be honest, Turkey has no reason to go to war with any country, nor does it have the energy to do so. Our economic situation is quite dire, and we also have additional burdens that weaken us both economically and sociologically, such as immigrants. We derive most of our income from trade and tourism. The continuity of these sectors depends on the continuity of peace or at least the absence of war. If we also consider our dependence on foreign energy, you will see that our situation becomes even clearer. You will also realise that this situation emboldens our enemies. Of course, small-scale military operations carried out in the national interest are excluded from this scope.

I would like to remind you that we must reconsider the layers that will grasp the fire and cover our rear. For we must prioritise a defensive structure in a way that is rarely seen in the world. It is clear that our robots will also need to be shaped accordingly. I will not go into detail about the front layer that will grasp the fire. I would just like to emphasise that we must prioritise the use of stealth technologies during the construction of this layer. The layer that will cover our rear and protect our country in depth is gaining importance as an element that requires greater importance and priority. This layer must be shaped not only from the perspective of the air force but also from the perspective of air defence.

If possible, I am aiming for a new generation concept that combines manned and unmanned systems under the same umbrella, consisting of complementary and mutually reinforcing elements. In this regard, although we have a solid foundation, I see that we lack awareness and the will to follow through.