YeşilVatan
Contributor
Yet it was the Turkish drone doctrine that changed the course of 3-4 conflicts while Americans droned Afganistan to bits with no results. No one here is saying American's can't produce an absolute monster if they put work into it. They just don't. There are reasons for it.The Americans have decades of experience with aerospace and aviation that qualify them to make a drone 100x better than KE in the same timespan of KE.
SpaceX did extensive testing that took them around 4 years for the first successful launch before their first mission in 2012 and it was mini NASA cargo mission.
Baykar with 0 experience in the Jet and stealth business announcing that 2024 will deliver KE is utterly ridiculous.
USA had the technology and the means to produce something like that in their war on terror during 00s. If they utilized something like Turkey did, their invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan would fare WAY better and cheaper. This docrinal stiffness partly originates from being the dominant superpower, but also from how their MIC operates. Their MIC is geared towards pleasing the Pentagon, the shareholders and PR people. This means they make very, very good stuff but achieve very little in doctrinal breaktroughs such as Turkish air-land drone warfare concept. Kızılelma is one such example. Air Force bigwigs insist manned aircraft is the centerpiece, and will continue to be for the next two decades. But is it? Or are they just change-averse?
The other thing is, US defence contractors have ZERO start-up energy. Everything goes through a commission. Their checks-and-balances system is good when it comes to filtering out useless stuff, so they manage to produce robust platforms, but it consumes A LOT of money. Putting aside the PPP problem, do you not think that the costs they have is not wildly overblown? And is it so hard to think that this might also be a problem when it comes to R&D timetables, too?
And lastly, US drone development was affected for at least a decade from acute politicization. Do you remember the "morality of drone strikes" debate? It was a huge thing in both later Bush years and also Obama years. If you were an Air Force decision maker, and you had the endless resources to do the same job but manned, would you not choose the non-drone option just to avoid politics of it? I strongly believe that's what they did, and it set US drone advancement at least a decade back.
Anyway, you are free to believe we are neanderthals who can't produce tech, but I suspect you wil be humbled in the future.
Last edited: