When deploying siper near cities within Turkey. Doesn't the booster falling from the missile pose a safety problem, as it may fall on someone and kill him.
When the Japanese planned to build 2 Aegis Ashore systems a few years ago, there were concerns about SM-3 and SM-6 boosters falling down on civilian areas and causing collateral damage. As such, plans to build Aegis Ashores were met with considerable opposition. In the end, they've replaced their plans with 2 Aegis destroyers equipped with the same radar (AN/SPY-7), for that exact reason. Though we should consider two key reasons the Japanese were able to replace a land based SAM system with a naval system : Any kind of ballistic or long range missile threats the Japanese face are from the west across the ocean. Also, the Japanese hold air and maritime superiority in the region their Aegis destroyers assigned for BMD will operate in, against NK and the Chinese.
In comparison, Türkiye doesn't have the same luxury in terms of geography when compared to the case I've mentioned above.
When faced against the Greeks, they don't possess ballistic missiles afaik, so that's one less thing to be worried about for the Turks. Their aerial targets could be shot down above the Aegean, though the problem is that TDK ships will be faced against Greek area denial in the region, which means those ships might not be able to allocate their resources, or could not be in position suitable for shooting down aerial threats(eg: Greek air force fighters performing deep strike) headed towards the Turkish main land, at a given time. On the other side of Anatolia, in case Türkiye goes into escalated conflict against Arab countries, ballistic missiles are a bigger threat and there are cities and military bases you can't cover from the sea, especially when those missiles are launched from Northern Levant. You just have to deal with it. Fortunately, threat from this region is not of great concern, at least as of now. Caucasian countries are also generally friendly with Türkiye with the exception of Armenia, but they also aren't much of a concern either.
There is a case in which a naval air and missile defence could act as a replacement for the ground based SAMs and that is if the Russian military were to attack Türkiye across the Black Sea. If Türkiye were to seriously consider a high altitude, long range missile defence capability against Russian ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missile threats, a sea based defence could be favorable considering the collateral damage ABM missiles, which often needs big boosters, could inflict to the civilians. Though in such case, the survivability of said naval AMD forces are of concern, so overall, its not as easy to come up with a definite answer.
Bruh, if this thing is fired from a civilian area aint nobody going to be outside for sure. It will probably be marshall law and all civilians will be sheltered. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.
Not all attacks could be warned early enough that you could guarantee there would be no civilian collateral damage, which is the exact reason why the things I've explained above happened. Though we should always consider the opportunity cost of such balance. Most of the times, the benefit of AMD is much greater than the possibilities of civilian collateral damage that could be caused by the missile's booster.
www.defenceturkey.com
